PLNPCM2010-00612 ADU Staff Report II - slcdocs.com Commission/2011/June/00612.pdf ·...

PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling Units 1 Published Date: June 16, 2011

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT

Planning Division

Department of Community & Economic Development

Accessory Dwelling Units Zoning Text Amendment

Petition No. PLNPCM2010-00612 June 22, 2011

Applicant: Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker

Staff: Michael Maloy AICP at (801) 535-7118 or [email protected]

Tax ID: Citywide

Current Zone: Citywide

Master Plan Designation: Citywide

Council District: Citywide

Lot Size: Citywide

Current Use: Single-family dwellings

Applicable Land Use Regulations: Chapter 21A.24 Residential Districts Chapter 21A.40 Accessory Uses,

Buildings and Structures Chapter 21A.62 Definitions

Notification: Notice published in Salt Lake Tribune on

March 9, 2011 (for March 23, 2011 hearing) Notice mailed to Community Councils

on June 9, 2011 Agenda posted on the Planning Division

and Utah Public Meeting Notice websites on June 9, 2011

Attachments: A. Accessory Dwelling Units Ordinance B. Residential Districts Map C. Transit Overlay Maps D. Sample Illustrations E. APA Quick Notes F. News Article: Seattle Looks to Cottages G. Dr. Arthur C. Nelson PowerPoint H. Public Input Chronology and Notes I. Public Comments J. Community Council Comments K. Department Comments

Request A request by Mayor Ralph Becker for a zoning text amendment to allow accessory dwelling units within the following single-family and multi-family residential districts: FR-1/43,560, FR-2/21,780, FR-3/12,000, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, SR-1, SR-1A, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75. This request is part of the Sustainability City Code Initiative and would affect areas City-wide. The Planning Commission’s authority in this matter is advisory to the City Council, which has the legislative authority to make the final decision.

Recommendation Based on the findings listed in the staff report, it is the opinion of Planning Staff that overall the proposal meets the applicable standards and therefore, recommends the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council relating to this request.

Potential Motions Consistent with Staff Recommendation: Based on the findings listed in the staff report, testimony, and information presented, I move that the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council relating to petition PLNPCM2010-00612 to permit and regulate accessory dwelling units within the following single-family and multi-family residential districts: FR-1/43,560, FR-2/21,780, FR-3/12,000, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, SR-1, SR-1A, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75.

Not Consistent with Staff Recommendation: Based on public testimony, information received, and the following findings, I move that the Planning Commission transmit a negative recommendation to the City Council relating to petition PLNPCM2010-00612 to permit and regulate accessory dwelling units within the following single-family and multi-family residential districts: FR-1/43,560, FR-2/21,780, FR-3/12,000, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, SR-1, SR-1A, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75.

The Planning Commission shall make findings on the Zoning Text Amendment standards as listed below: 1. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals,

objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents;

2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance;

3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and

4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design.


Background

Project Description Mayor Ralph Becker, in cooperation with the City Council, has initiated a series of administrative policies and legislative petitions to encourage sustainable land use within Salt Lake City. The petitions address various city codes, including zoning. In support of this effort—which is generally known as the Sustainability City Code Initiative—the City retained the services of Clarion Associates, an experienced and respected land use planning and real estate consulting firm to research and produce draft ordinances. Petition PLNPCM2010-00612 proposes to permit accessory dwelling units in single-family and multi-family residential districts (see Attachment A – Accessory Dwelling Units Ordinance). An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is a residential unit that is established on the same lot as a single-family dwelling unit, and may be located within a single-family dwelling, attached to a single-family dwelling (such as in an addition), or in a detached structure (such as in a garage or separate accessory structure). The accessory dwelling unit must be a complete housekeeping unit with a separate kitchen, sleeping area, closet space, bathroom facilities, and a shared or separate entrance. The proposed ordinance requires owner occupancy of the principal or accessory dwelling, additional parking, and compliance with current building codes. To ensure the accessory dwelling is subordinate to the principal dwelling, the draft ordinance establishes a maximum building square footage, a scalable building height limit, minimum building setbacks, and maximum lot coverage in compliance with the underlying zone. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) have become an important component of the housing stock in many communities—both large and small—in the United States. By providing housing on existing lots in developed neighborhoods, ADUs are a form of land use that makes good use of land and public infrastructure investment. Accessory Dwelling Units, when located near employment and retail centers, help increase the use of circulation alternatives—such as walking, cycling, mass transit—leading to a reduction in green house gas emissions and energy (fuel) use. Additionally, the changing face of the American public and its housing needs supports the inclusion of ADUs as a housing alternative. More people are aging, are “empty nesters,” and desire to down-size. In addition, the work force continues to be challenged to find affordable housing and ADUs can help address that demand (see Attachment E – APA Quick Notes and Attachment F – News Article: Seattle Looks to Cottages). With respect to observable trends in sustainability, demographics, land use development, and economic conditions, the stated purposes for Petition PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling Units are: 1. Create new housing units while respecting the look and scale of single-dwelling development; 2. Increase the housing stock of existing neighborhoods in a manner that is less intense than alternatives; 3. Allow more efficient use of existing housing stock, public infrastructure, and the embodied energy

contained within existing structures; 4. Provide a mix of housing options that responds to changing family needs and smaller households; 5. Offer a means for residents, particularly seniors, single parents, and families with grown children, to remain

in their homes and neighborhoods, and obtain extra income, security, companionship, and services; 6. Promote a broader range of affordable housing; 7. Provide opportunity for workforce housing in developed and new neighborhoods, close to places of work,

thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing fossil fuel consumption through less car commuting; 8. Support transit-oriented development and reduce auto usage by increasing density near transit stops; and 9. Support the economic viability of historic properties and the city’s historic preservation goals by allowing

accessory residential uses in historic structures.


Comments

Public Comments Since December of 2009, the Planning Division has discussed the proposal in more than 20 public meetings (see Attachment H – Public Input Chronology and Notes). On March 23, 2011, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and afterward voted to table the petition until a future public meeting, and directed staff to research several issues, such as: Increase parking requirement for an ADU. Staff reviewed this issue and has included a provision for two

additional parking stalls for ADUs with two bedrooms or more. Establish minimum lot size for a detached ADU. Staff reviewed this issue and has included regulation

that requires a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet for detached ADUs. Limit the number of residents allowed within an ADU. Staff reviewed this issue, and based upon legal

council, staff does not recommend amending this section of the proposed regulation, which relies upon the following definition of a “family” as found within Salt Lake City Code, Section 21A.62.040, which is entitled Definitions of Terms:

Family: A. One or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, or legal guardianship, including foster

children, living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit; or B. A group of not more than three (3) persons not related by blood, marriage, adoption, or legal

guardianship living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit; or C. Two (2) unrelated persons and their children living together as a single housekeeping unit in a

dwelling unit. The term "family" shall not be construed to mean a club, group home, transitional victim home, substance abuse home, transitional home, a lodge or a fraternity/sorority house.

On June 9, 2011, the Planning Commission received a briefing on accessory dwelling units by Presidential Professor of City & Metropolitan Planning, Dr. Arthur C. Nelson, from the University of Utah College of Architecture + Planning. Professor Nelson delivered a PowerPoint presentation that included census data and demographic trends relative to accessory dwelling units (see Attachment G – Dr. Arthur C. Nelson PowerPoint). All public comments received to date have been included for review and consideration (see Attachment I – Public Comments). Based on a review of public comments received, staff has provided the following summary of issues: Density. In 2010, the Unites States Census Bureau estimated the population of Salt Lake City at 186,440,

which is up from 181,743 in 2000. Salt Lake City’s population per square mile is 1,688. Because the development pattern of Salt Lake City is unique within Utah—due to extensive commercial development, an international airport, and notable quantities of undeveloped land—it is difficult to compare density with other communities. However, for reference purposes only, the Census Bureau in May of 2001 identified the City of Taylorsville as the most densely populated city in the state with 5,376.2 persons per square mile. Other densely populated Utah cities include Midvale (4,627.4), Orem (4,573.6), Washington Terrace (4,477.4), Roy (4,330.8), Sandy (3,961.5), and South Ogden (3,917.1). If approved, the proposed ordinance will impact all single-family and multi-family districts within the City. The area contained within the impacted residential districts is 8,777 acres, which is approximately 12.42% of the total area of Salt Lake City.


A significant element of density is the average household size. The Unites States Census Bureau defines household as:

A household includes all the persons who occupy a housing unit. A housing unit is a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied (or if vacant, is intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live and eat separately from any other persons in the building and which have direct access from the outside of the building or through a common hall. The occupants may be a single family, one person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unrelated persons who share living arrangements.

Based on information gleaned from Census reports, the average household size within in Salt Lake City is declining: Census Year Salt Lake City Average Household Size United States Average Household Size 1950 3.38 persons 3.40 persons 1960 3.29 persons 3.29 persons 1970 2.93 persons 3.10 persons 1980 2.60 persons 2.76 persons 1990 2.33 persons 2.63 persons 2000 2.48 persons 2.59 persons 2010 2.50 persons 2.58 persons

During the past 50 years, the decline in average household size is clear. However, the anomalous increase in the average household size in 2000 is in part due to the notable population growth among minorities. In 1990, minorities in Salt Lake City were 9.77% of the total population. In 2010, minorities in Salt Lake City form 20.8% of the total population. This issue is further explained in a report entitled Age and Family Structure by Race, Ethnicity and Place of Residence published by the United States Department of Agriculture, minority groups have a larger average household size than other cohorts:

Both household and family size declined between 1980 and 1990 in urban and rural areas. In 1990, average household size was 2.5 persons for Whites, 2.9 for Blacks, and 3.5 for Hispanics. Average family size in 1990, regardless of residence, was 3.1 for Whites, 3.5 for Blacks, and 3.9 for Hispanics. Both Whites and Blacks experienced declines in household and family size between 1980 and 1990. As declines were larger for the Black population, the racial gap contracted. Much of the decline in household and family size is due to decreased childbearing and a drop in the average number of children and other household members under age 18 (Hernandez, 1993). Large families usually reduce the amount of time and resources parents can devote to each child. Smaller family size implies improved educational, occupational, and economic opportunities for children. Minorities tend to have larger families and households than Whites, with Hispanics having the largest families. About 12 percent of Hispanic households in 1991 had 6 or more members, compared with 3 percent of non-Hispanic households (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1991).

Opponents of the proposal often cite the comprehensive 1995 zoning update that reduced development density in many Salt Lake City residential neighborhoods (see Attachment J – Community Council Comments). Opponents believe that ADUs represent a reversal of that previous legislative action. In response, some residents have suggested that ADUs should be limited to zoning districts that permit multi-family development. Within multi-family districts, the proposed ordinance will allow development of an accessory dwelling unit if compliant with all other applicable building and zoning regulations.


Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (citywide, limited to 25 permits per calendar year). Option 2. Modify regulation to restrict accessory dwelling units to zoning districts that currently allow

more than one dwelling unit per lot, such as SR-1, SR-1A, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75 (see Attachment B – Residential Districts Map).

Location. As previously described, the proposal is restricted to single-family dwellings within specific residential zoning districts. Some opponents of the proposal have recommended prohibiting ADUs within specific communities, such as the Avenues, or requiring ADUs to locate within a specified from a fixed public transportation line, such as TRAX or the future Sugar House streetcar line (see Attachment C – Transit Overlay Maps). To further illustrate the impact of this proposal, Dr. Arthur C. Nelson, from the University of Utah College of Architecture + Planning, provided a tabulation of single-family dwellings located within ½ mile of current and proposed TRAX and street car stations.

Streetcar Stations Number of Single-Family Dwellings within ½ Mile of Station2100 South 210State Street 236300 East 596500 East 936700 East 1,122900 East 8231040 East 664Sub Total 4,587

Light Rail Stations Number of Single-Family Dwellings within ½ Mile of StationBallpark 73City Center 47Gallivan Center 0Temple Square 93Delta Center 39Courthouse 4Library 113Trolley 579900 East 909Stadium 676University South Campus

0

University Medical 101Fort Douglas 0900 South 22Greektown 56SLC Central 114Planetarium 9Cornell 142800 West 599500 West 178Fairpark 430Winifred 217Sub Total 4,401Grand Total 8,988

According to Dr. Nelson, the grand total represents (approximately) 25% of the total supply of single-family units within the City. Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (citywide, limited to 25 permits per calendar year). Option 2. Modify regulation to restrict ADUs to specific neighborhoods or areas. Option 3. Modify regulation to restrict ADUs to single-family dwellings within ½ mile of transit lines.


Design. The proposal recommends compliance with all underlying zoning district requirements, including overlays such as the H Historic District. Additional development requirements are included to ensure compatibility with established development patterns, such as limitations on building height and placement of entrances. However, opponents remain concerned that the proposal will alter the character of single-family neighborhoods (see Attachment D – Sample Illustrations). Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (design subject to overlays, compatible with principal

dwelling). Option 2. Modify regulation to include additional design and material regulations (to be specified).

Privacy. A common concern when dealing with residential infill development is privacy. Although privacy is an issue that is addressed within portions of City Code, assurance of privacy—within a rear a rear yard for example—is not listed within the Purpose and Intent Statement (21A.020.030) of Title 21A Zoning, and is only identified as a type of fence within the General Provisions (21A.24.010) of Chapter 21A.24 Residential Districts.

In a 1961 landmark book on planning, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, famed author and urbanist Jane Jacobs offers the following comment on privacy:

Architectural and planning literature deals with privacy in terms of windows, overlooks, sight lines. The idea is that if no one from outside can peek into where you live—behold, privacy. This is simple minded. Window privacy is the easiest commodity in the world to get. You just pull down the shades or adjust the blinds. The privacy of keeping one’s personal affairs to those selected to know them, and the privacy of having reasonable control over who shall make inroads on your time and when, are rare commodities in most of this world, however, and they have nothing to do with the orientation of windows (p. 77).

Whereas the proposal requires compliance with all applicable yard and bulk regulations when located within the buildable area for a single-family dwelling—identical to limitations on a residential addition permitted under current regulations—staff does not recommend additional restrictions in response to this concern. However, when an ADU is located outside the buildable area for a principal dwelling, the Commission may consider additional regulations for the placement of windows, similar to the following standard for a “hobby shop” when located in a residential district:

21A.52.100: Specific Conditions for Special Exceptions: If the accessory building is located within ten feet (10') of a property line, no windows shall be allowed in the walls adjacent to the property lines.

Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (no additional criteria regulating privacy). Option 2. Modify regulation to limit the placement of windows if the accessory dwelling is located

outside the buildable area for a single-family dwelling and within ten feet (10') of a property line.

Owner Occupancy. Although there has been some support to remove the owner occupancy requirement, most comments recommend that this is an essential component of the proposal. The primary concern regarding owner occupancy is the city’s ability to enforce the proposed regulation. The proposed owner occupancy regulation is derived from language used by Provo City for a similar ordinance, which has been successfully upheld by the Supreme Court of Utah (Case No. 20030679). Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (owner occupancy required). Option 2. Modify regulation to reduce length of bona fide absence from three years to one year.


Parking. The attached proposal requires one parking stall for a studio or one bedroom ADU, or two parking stalls for a two bedroom ADU, in addition to the required off-street parking for a single-family dwelling. However, under certain conditions the Transportation Division may modify the requirement if located within ¼ mile of a fixed transit line or an arterial street with a designated bus route (see Attachment C – Transit Overlay Maps). It is the opinion of Planning Staff, that earlier proposals which required only one parking stall for an ADU represented a balance between requiring on-site parking and discouraging additional pavement. Additional pavement increases storm water drainage—as well as the “urban heat island”—which impacts are contrary to sustainability. However, based on concerns expressed during the March 23, 2011 public hearing that insufficient off-street parking will increase on-street parking—which in some neighborhoods is severely limited—staff modified the proposal. With respect to concerns regarding vehicle damage and thefts, Police Sergeant Michelle Ross did not identify “car prowling” within residential neighborhoods as an issue (see Attachment K – Department Comments). Option 1. Approve proposed regulation (one parking stall for studio or one bedroom unit, and two

parking stalls with two or more bedrooms) with tandem parking. Option 2. Modify proposed regulation (one parking stall for studio or one bedroom unit, and two

parking stalls with two or more bedrooms) to exclude tandem parking. Option 3. Modify proposed regulation to require two off-street parking stalls per ADU (without regard

to the number of bedrooms) with tandem parking. Option 4. Modify proposed regulation to require two off-street parking stalls per ADU (without regard

to the number of bedrooms) without tandem parking.

Traffic. Whereas Salt Lake City is a significant source of employment and services, proponents of the proposal argue that permitting ADUs within the City—rather than forcing growth into suburban communities—will reduce the total amount of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Although the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) does not publish a report on traffic generation for ADUs, the ITE finds that a rental townhouse will generate (on average) 0.73 trips during the weekday a.m. peak hour, and 0.73 trips during the weekday p.m. peak hour. In comparison, a single-family detached house will generate (on average) 0.77 trips per a.m. peak hours, and 1.02 trips per p.m. peak hour. Although this issue, along with parking, has been a significant concern for opponents, the Transportation Division and Engineering Division did not identify traffic as a notable concern (see Attachment K – Department Comments). Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (no restriction relative to street classification, encourages use

of alleys). Option 2. Modify regulation to restrict location of ADUs to parcels that are accessible from a City

arterial or collector street.

Accessibility. On February 22, 2011, staff presented the proposed ADU ordinance to the Mayor's Accessible Services Advisory Council. In response, the committee prepared a statement in support of the proposal, with recommendations to modify the regulation to encourage development of visitable or accessible ADUs (see Attachment H – Public Input Chronology and Notes). Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (no requirement for visitable or accessible improvements,

however accessible ADUs are exempt from annual permit allocation). Option 2. Modify regulation to increase the square foot maximum for an accessible ADU by 150

square feet (specified amount may be modified). Option 3. Modify regulation to require 20 percent of ADU permits to meet accessibility standards. Option 5. Modify regulation to reduce building permit fee for ADUs (amount to be specified).


City Department Comments The comments received from pertinent City Departments / Divisions are attached to this staff report in Attachment K – Department Comments (which include comments from Building Services that were not attached to the March 23, 2011 Planning Commission Staff Report). Although the Planning Division has not received any comments from applicable City Departments / Divisions that cannot be reasonably fulfilled or that warrant denial of the petition, staff recommends discussion of the following issues: Utilities. One of the arguments in favor of the proposal is its efficient use of existing public infrastructure,

which reduces pressure to develop new streets and utility lines. However, opponents of the proposal have expressed concern regarding capacity of existing public utilities. In a 1981 report entitled Accessory Apartments: Using Surplus Space in Single Family Houses published by the American Planning Association (APA) the authors addressed the following question:

How Many Units are Likely to be Built? Civic groups are frequently fearful about the number of units that may be created under an ordinance. A little guidance is provided by the experience of towns that have ordinances. When Portland, Oregon's Add-A-Rental went into effect in January, 1981, after considerable controversy, almost nothing happened. It was five months before Portland had its first three applications, and, by the end of the year, only five had come in. Babylon, Long Island (New York), estimated in 1979 that it had accessory apartments in 10-20 percent of its stock. Lyndenhurst, next to Babylon, has had an accessory apartment ordinance since 1955, and only 10 percent of its single-family stock has been converted legally. Weston, Connecticut, has about 10 percent of its housing stock in accessory apartments, even though it has had an ordinance since the early 1960s. Renton, Washington, with an ordinance since 1955, has conversions in about eight percent of its house. There is one lesson to be drawn: the presence of an ordinance permitting accessory apartments doesn't necessarily stimulate conversion to accessory apartments, and the absence of one doesn't necessarily discourage them (italics added for emphasis).

Locally, Daybreak—a successful planned development community in South Jordan, Utah that is modeled after older Salt Lake City neighborhoods—includes provisions for accessory apartments. George Shaw, Community Development Director for the City of South Jordan, reported that there are approximately 20 detached accessory dwellings, and 6 attached accessory dwellings within Daybreak, which contains approximately 2,500 households and 9,000 residents. Based upon research, and upon receipt of a letter of recommendation from the Department of Public Utilities that did not identify utility capacity as a concern, staff finds that this issue is not a significant concern (see Attachment K – Department Comments). Another issue relative to utilities that has persisted throughout the development of the draft ordinance is whether to require separate utility meters for ADUs. Because an ADU may be attached to or detached from the principal dwelling, and construction of utility infrastructure will vary, the proposed ordinance allows for property owner preference (subject to compliance with City regulations). However, some have argued that prohibiting separate utility meters may encourage compliance with owner occupancy provisions. In response to this issue, Justin Stoker (Engineer V with the Department of Public Utilities) recommended approval of the proposed regulation with the following modification:

If sewer or water utility service will be connected through the primary residence and not connected through a separate connection to the sewer or water main, the deed restriction will also identify any sewer or water connections into or through the primary residence.


Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (limit number of permits issued per calendar year, separate utility meters for ADU are not required but may be installed by a licensed contractor upon approval of the City and utility company).

Option 2. Modify regulation to include deed restriction regarding utility services when connected through principal (or primary) residence.

Option 2. Modify regulation to require installation of separate utility meters for an ADU. Option 3. Modify regulation to prohibit the installation of additional utility meters for an ADU. Enforcement. As a matter of legislative policy, Salt Lake City desires to preserve housing that “substantially complies with life and safety codes.” Currently, Salt Lake City administrates a process to legalize existing dwelling units that were constructed before 1970 and have been continuously used. This process is known as “Legalization of Excess Dwelling Units” and is governed by Section 21A.52.100 of the Zoning Title. However, the unit legalization process is completely separate and independent from the proposed ADU regulation. A common concern is the City’s ability to enforce the proposed ADU regulation. To address this issue, the City will require an annual business license for each ADU, which fee was recently approved by the City Council as part of the 2011-2012 City Budget (base license fee is $110.00, plus $342.00 per rental unit, or $20.00 per rental unit with Good Landlord Certification). In turn, the business license fee will be used to administrate inspection and enforcement of ADUs. Violation of business license regulations are specified in Article I of Chapter 5.04 of Title 5 Business Taxes, Licensing and Regulation. However, violators of the proposed ordinance would also be subject to the following zoning enforcement regulations:

21A.20.040: Fines for Violations: A. Violations of the provisions of this title or failure to comply with any of its requirements shall be

punishable as a class B misdemeanor upon conviction (italics added for emphasis). B. This title may also be enforced by injunction, mandamus, abatement, civil fines or any other

appropriate action in law or equity. C. Each day that any violation continues after the citation deadline shall be considered a separate

offense for purposes of the fines and remedies available to the city (italics added for emphasis). D. Accumulation of fines for violations, but not the obligation for payment of fines already accrued,

shall stop upon correction of the violation. E. Any one or more of the fines and remedies identified herein may be used to enforce this title. 21A.20.050: Civil Fines: If the violations are not corrected by the citation deadline, civil fines shall accrue at twenty five dollars ($25.00) a day per violation for properties in residential zoning districts and one hundred dollars ($100.00) per day per violation for properties in nonresidential zoning districts (italics added for emphasis).

In response to the proposal, Craig Spangenberg, Civil Enforcement Manager, recommended that the “draft ordinance should contain specific, verifiable criteria to be used in order to meet the owner occupied requirement” (see Attachment K – Department Comments). Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed. Option 2. Modify regulation to improve capability of enforcement (recommendations to be specified).

Project Review

Focus Group. On July 14, 2010, the Planning Division conducted a “focus group” to review and discuss the proposed accessory dwelling units regulation. During the meeting, Chris Duerksen and Joyce Allgaier with Clarion Associates presented a comprehensive overview on the proposal, answered


questions, and noted concerns for future consideration. The ADU focus group was comprised of the following individuals:

NAME REPRESENTATION ATTENDANCE Cindy Cromer Property Owner Yes George Kelner Yalecrest Community Council No Gordon Storrs Fairpark Community Council Yes DeWitt Smith Liberty Wells Community Council No Jim Jenkin Greater Avenues Community Council No Philip Carlson Sugar House Community Council Yes David Richardson Capitol Hill Construction No Michael Mahaffey Contractor Yes Bryson Garbett Developer Yes Ed Sperry Realtor No Tim Funk Crossroads Urban Center No Maria Garciaz Neighborworks Salt Lake Yes Jon Lear Downey Mansion No Paul Smith Utah Apartment Association Yes Mike Ostermiller Utah Association of Realtors No Justin Allen Salt Lake Board of Realtors Yes Sonya Martinez Community Action Agency Yes Roger Borgenicht ASSIST Yes Philip Carroll Community Housing Services Inc Yes Arla Funk Historic Landmark Commission Yes Claudia O'Grady Utah Housing Corporation No Ashken Tanielian Housing Advocate No Dan Bethel Architect No Annalisa Steggell Holcombe Westminster College Yes Francisca Blanc Utah Housing Coalition Yes

Revisions. The Planning Division and Clarion Associates have revised the proposed regulation

numerous times during the past year. Primarily, changes in the draft ordinance addressed owner occupancy requirements, building height regulations, minimum setbacks, building design, limiting the number of ADU permits issued per calendar year, and parking requirements.

Analysis and Findings

Options Whereas the City Council has final legislative authority over the petition, the Planning Commission may:

Recommend approval of the proposal based on testimony and findings contained within the staff report; Recommend approval with specific modifications; Recommend denial of the petition based on testimony and findings; or Table the proposal for further review.

If the Commission votes to table the petition, the Planning Division respectfully requests the Commission provide specific direction to staff.

Findings

Section 21A.50.050. A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one standard. However, in making its decision concerning a proposed amendment, the city council should consider the following factors:


1. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents;

Finding: Within the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan, which was prepared by the Housing and Neighborhood Division of Community and Economic Development Department and adopted by the Salt Lake City Council in April of 2000, the following policy statements and implementation strategies are applicable:

City Council Policy Statement. The City Council supports a citywide variety of housing units, including affordable housing and supports accommodating different types and intensities of residential development. (p. 8)

City Council Policy Statement. The City Council supports mixed use and mixed income concepts and projects that achieve vibrant, safe, integrated, walkable neighborhoods through a diverse mix of uses and incomes in areas with established services… (p. 19)

Affordable and Transitional Housing Implementation Strategy 1. Review “Best Practices” from other cities and establish new programs or expand existing programs that meet housing needs and maximize housing opportunities for all residents within Salt Lake City. (p. 24)

City Council Policy Statement. On a citywide basis, the City Council endorses accessory housing units in single-family zones, subject to restrictions designed to limit impacts and protect neighborhood character. (p. 32)

Action Step for Implementation Strategy 5. Define accessory housing units. Determine residential zones that could support such changes. Prepare necessary criteria and amendments for future ordinances on accessory units. (p. 33)

In another policy document entitled Creating Tomorrow Together: Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission, which was commissioned in February 1996 by former Mayor Ted Wilson and delivered to the City Council in March 1998 the following assertions, goals, and recommendations are applicable:

Assertion M: There is a mix of housing types, densities, and costs so that people of various economic groups can co-exist. Services for those less fortunate are seen as a positive attribute and are nurtured within our community.

o Recommendation 1: Amend zoning laws to encourage mixed use in appropriate areas. Proposed Action: Adopt amendments to city zoning ordinances that allow mixed-use

development in designated areas of the city. Identify areas to be included in ordinances, define types of mixed uses allowed (p. 13).

Goal B: The ideal neighborhood will be diverse. Neighborhoods will encourage persons of different incomes, ages, cultures, races, religions, genders, lifestyles, and familial statuses to be active community stakeholders. Families of various size and composition can be well served through a variety of programs and services. Service organizations will also be available to special-needs populations (p. 41).

Goal D: The ideal neighborhood will be well maintained. Landlords, tenants, and homeowners will share responsibility for keeping properties in good condition. Home ownership will be encouraged where possible. Neighborhoods should contain a variety of housing types, but more units should be owner occupied than renter occupied. This leads to longer term residents and stabilizes property values. Owners of rental units will be responsible and will maintain their properties. Mechanisms need to be in place to address problems caused by owners/renters who fail to maintain their properties. Landlords must screen tenants to ensure that they will be responsible renters. Landlords must also make repairs to their housing units to keep them as viable assets in the neighborhood. Housing should be designed for the changing needs of our current and future population (p. 43).


Based on a review of the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan, and the Creating Tomorrow Together: Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission, which documents are applicable citywide, staff finds the proposal is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City.

2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance;

Finding: Chapter 21A.02.030 of the Zoning Ordinance states:

Purpose and Intent: The purpose of this title is to promote the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake City, to implement the adopted plans of the city, and to carry out the purposes of the municipal land use development and management act, title 10, chapter 9, of the Utah Code Annotated or its successor, and other relevant statutes. This title is, in addition, intended to:

a. Lessen congestion in the streets or roads; b. Secure safety from fire and other dangers; c. Provide adequate light and air; d. Classify land uses and distribute land development and utilization; e. Protect the tax base; f. Secure economy in governmental expenditures; g. Foster the city's industrial, business and residential development; and h. Protect the environment.

Additionally, Section 21A.24.010 of the Zoning Ordinance provides the following “general provision” for all residential districts:

Statement of Intent: The residential districts are intended to provide a range of housing choices to meet the needs of Salt Lake City's citizens, to offer a balance of housing types and densities, to preserve and maintain the city's neighborhoods as safe and convenient places to live, to promote the harmonious development of residential communities, to ensure compatible infill development, and to help implement adopted plans.

Although staff agrees with opponents that accessory dwelling units may marginally increase congestion and parking on neighborhood streets, permitting accessory dwelling units will:

Improve viability of public transit; Improve property values; Is an economical use of public and private infrastructure; Protect the environment through reduction of vehicle miles driven within the region; Provide a range of housing choices; and Preserve and maintain neighborhoods as safe and convenient places to live.

Therefore, staff finds that the proposal furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.

3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and

Finding: As stated within the proposed text amendment, accessory dwelling units shall be subject to compliance with the underlying zoning ordinance, which includes any applicable overlay zoning districts, such as the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and the YCI Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay District. Therefore, the proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standard.


4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design.

Finding: The proposed text amendment was originally crafted after reviewing “best practices” of various cities, such as Portland, OR; Santa Cruz and Chula Vista, CA; Seattle, WA; Lexington, MA; and Aspen, CO. As summarized within Attachment E – APA Quick Notes, the American Planning Association recommends that “…communities would do well to seriously consider adopting an approach that…allows ADUs by right with clear written conditions; does not require owner occupancy; prohibits condominium ownership on the basis that a condo could not be considered accessory; provides a simple procedure for legalizing preexisting or formerly illegal apartments provided the unit is inspected; provides a generous size standard; and provides a water and sewer adequacy standard.” Although the proposed text amendment does not strictly achieve all of the recommendations provided by the American Planning Association, the proposal does reflect best practices tempered by local concerns, such as preference for owner occupancy requirements. Therefore, staff finds the proposal is consistent with this factor.


Attachment A Accessory Dwelling Units Ordinance

Salt Lake City 1 Accessory Dwelling Units June 2011

CHAPTER 21A.XX 21A.XX.XX: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS A. Purpose Statement……………………………………………………………………………..………2 B. Applicability…………………………………………………………………………………………...2 C. Permit Allocation………………………………………………………………………………………2 D. Definitions…………………………………………………………………………………………..…3 E. Standards……………………………………..…………………………………………………..……4


ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS

A. PURPOSE STATEMENT

The purposes of the accessory dwelling unit provisions are to:

1. Create new housing units while respecting the look and scale of single-dwelling development;

2. Increase the housing stock of existing neighborhoods in a manner that is less intense than alternatives;

3. Allow more efficient use of existing housing stock, public infrastructure, and the embodied energy contained within existing structures;

4. Provide a mix of housing options that responds to changing family needs and smaller households;

5. Offer a means for residents, particularly seniors, single parents, and families with grown children, to remain in their homes and neighborhoods, and obtain extra income, security, companionship, and services;

6. Promote a broader range of affordable housing;

7. Provide opportunity for workforce housing in developed and new neighborhoods, close to places of work, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing fossil fuel consumption through less car commuting;

8. Support transit-oriented development and reduce auto usage by increasing density near transit stops; and

9. Support the economic viability of historic properties and the city’s historic preservation goals by allowing accessory residential uses in historic structures.

B. APPLICABILITY

An accessory dwelling unit may be incorporated within or added onto an existing house, garage, or other accessory structure, or may be built as a separate, detached structure on a lot where a single-family dwelling exists. Accessory dwelling units are allowed in the following residential zone districts: FR-1/43,560, FR-2/21,780, FR-3/12,000, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, SR-1, SR-1A, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75 subject to the provisions of this section.

C. PERMIT ALLOCATION

1. The city shall limit the establishment of accessory dwelling units, pursuant to this ordinance, to twenty-five (25) units per calendar year, with the following exceptions;

a. Accessory dwelling units located within a Redevelopment Agency (RDA) of Salt Lake City project area, or funded in part by RDA housing funds, shall be exempt from annual permit allocation limits;

b. Accessory dwelling units that comply with all accessibility standards as contained within the current building code shall be exempt from annual permit allocation limits.

2. Building permit applications for an accessory dwelling unit shall be accepted and processed in order of date and time submitted, however order of approval shall be based solely on compliance with current building code.


D. DEFINITIONS1

Accessory Dwelling Unit: A residential unit that is located on the same lot as a single-family dwelling unit, either internal to or attached to the single family unit or in a detached structure. The accessory dwelling unit shall be a complete housekeeping unit with a shared or separate entrance, and separate kitchen, sleeping area, closet space, and bathroom facilities.

Owner Occupant:

1. An individual who:

a. Possesses, as shown by a recorded deed, fifty (50) percent or more ownership in a dwelling unit, and

b. Occupies the dwelling unit with a bona fide intent to make it his or her primary residence; or

2. An individual who:

a. Is a trustor of a family trust which:

(1) Possesses fee title ownership to a dwelling unit;

(2) Was created for estate planning purposes by one (1) or more trustors of the trust; and

b. Occupies the dwelling unit owned by the family trust with a bona fide intent to make it his or her primary residence. Each living trustor of the trust shall so occupy the dwelling unit except for a trustor who temporarily resides elsewhere due to a disability or infirmity. In such event, the dwelling unit shall nevertheless be the domicile of the trustor during the trustor's temporary absence.

3. Even if a person meets the requirements of Subsections 1 or 2 of this definition, such person shall not be deemed an owner occupant if the property on which the dwelling unit is located has more than one (1) owner and all owners of the property do not occupy the dwelling unit with a bona fide intent to make the dwelling unit their primary residence.

a. A claim by the City that a person is not an owner occupant may be rebutted only by documentation, submitted to the Community and Economic Development Department, showing such person has a bona fide intent to make the dwelling unit his or her primary residence. Such intent shall be shown by:

(1) Documents for any loan presently applicable to the property where the dwelling unit is located which name the person as a borrower;

(2) Tax returns which show the person has claimed income, deductions, or depreciation from the property;

(3) Rental documents and agreements with any tenant who occupies the dwelling unit, including an accessory apartment;

(4) Insurance, utility, appraisal, or other contractual documents related to the property which name the person as the property owner; and

(5) Documents which show the person is a full-time resident of Utah for Utah State income tax purposes.

b. Any person who fails, upon request of the Community and Economic Development Department, to provide any of the documents set forth in Subsections 3a of this definition or who provides a document showing that ownership of a dwelling unit is shared among persons who do not all occupy the dwelling unit shall mean for the purpose of this Title that such person shall not be deemed an "owner occupant" of the dwelling unit in question.

1 Definitions will be inserted in Chapter 21A.62, Definitions, of the current zoning code. The definition of, “dwelling, single-family” is used intentionally in this section to exclude mobile homes, travel homes, and temporary housing to qualify as the principal dwelling for the purposes of accessory unit on the same lot.


4. The provisions of Subsection 3 of this definition shall apply to any person who began a period of owner occupancy after July 1, 2011, regardless of when the person purchased the property.

E. STANDARDS

Accessory dwelling units shall conform to the following purpose statement and requirements:

1. Purpose. These design and development standards are intended to ensure that accessory dwelling units are:

a. Compatible with the desired character and livability of the residential zoning districts;

b. Compatible with the historic district and landmark resources of the city;

c. Compatible with the general building scales and placement of structures to allow sharing of common space on the lot, such as yards and driveways; and

d. Smaller in size than the principal dwelling on the site.

2. General Requirements.

a. Owner-occupied Property Required. Accessory dwelling units shall only be permitted when the property owner lives on the property within either the principal dwelling or accessory dwelling unit. Owner occupancy shall not be required when:

(1) The owner has a bona fide, temporary absence of three (3) years or less for activities such as military service, temporary job assignments, sabbaticals, or voluntary service (indefinite periods of absence from the dwelling shall not qualify for this exception), or

(2) The owner is placed in a hospital, nursing home, assisted living facility or other similar facility that provides regular medical care, excluding retirement living facilities or communities.

b. Deed Restriction. A lot approved for development with an accessory dwelling unit shall have a deed restriction, the form of which shall be approved by the City Attorney, filed with the county recorder’s office indicating such owner-occupied requirement of the property prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for the accessory dwelling unit by the city. Such deed restriction shall run with the land until the accessory dwelling unit is abandoned or revoked.

c. One per Lot. One accessory dwelling unit is permitted per residential lot.

d. Underlying Zoning Applies. Unless specifically provided otherwise in this section, accessory dwelling units are subject to the regulations for a principal building of the underlying zoning district with regard to lot and bulk standards, such as building and wall height, setbacks, yard requirements, and building coverage.

(1) The requirements of Section 21A.40.050, Accessory Uses, Buildings, and Structures, which govern all non-residential accessory structures, do not apply to accessory dwelling units.

(2) Accessory dwelling units may have the same building setbacks as that allowed in the zoning district for the principal dwelling on the property. An existing accessory structure whose setbacks do not meet the setback requirements for a dwelling as noted above may be converted into an accessory dwelling unit but any non-complying setbacks may not become more non-complying.

e. Existing Development on Lot. A single-family dwelling shall exist on the lot or will be constructed in conjunction with the accessory dwelling unit.


f. Internal, Attached, or Detached. While accessory dwelling units are allowed only in conjunction with a principal dwelling on a lot, the unit may be built internal to, attached to, or as a separate unit detached from the principal dwelling.

g. Minimum Lot Area. Within permissible zoning districts, the minimum lot area required for an accessory dwelling unit shall be:

(1) Internal. For accessory dwelling units located within the principal single-family structure, no minimum lot area is required.

(2) Detached. For accessory dwelling units located within a detached structure, a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet is required.

(3) Attached. For accessory dwelling units located within an addition to the single-family structure, no minimum lot area is required.

h. Building Code Compliance. Accessory dwelling units are subject to compliance with current building code at time of permit approval.

i. Public Utilities. No structure that is not connected to the public water and sanitary sewer systems shall have an accessory dwelling unit.

j. Multi-Family Districts with Single Family Dwelling on Lot. A lot located within a multi-family zoning district that is currently built out with a single-family detached dwelling and does not have the required minimum amount of land to add additional units pursuant to the multifamily zoning district requirement, one accessory dwelling unit may be permitted.

k. Not a Unit of Density. Accessory dwelling units are not considered a unit of density and therefore are not included in the density calculation for residential property.

l. Rooming House. Neither dwelling unit may be used as a rooming house as defined by Section 21A.62.040 of this title.

m. Home Occupations. Home occupations listed in Section 21A36.030 B, Permitted Home Occupations, may be conducted in an accessory dwelling unit. Those home occupations listed in this section under “Conditional Home Occupations” are explicitly not allowed in accessory dwelling units in order to maintain the residential nature of the dwelling unit.

n. H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Accessory dwelling units located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District are subject to the applicable regulations and review processes of Section 21A.34.020, including the related guidelines and standards as adopted by Salt Lake City to ensure compatible building and preservation of historic resources.

3. Methods of Creation. An accessory dwelling unit may only be created through one of more of the following methods:

a. Converting existing living area within a principal structure, such as a basement or attic space;

b. Adding floor area to a principal structure;

c. Constructing a new single-family detached dwelling unit structure with an internal or detached accessory dwelling unit;

d. Converting or adding onto an existing accessory structure on a lot, such as to a garage or other outbuilding, where no required parking for the principal dwelling is eliminated by the accessory dwelling unit; and

e. Constructing a new accessory dwelling unit within a separate detached structure in compliance with applicable lot coverage regulations.

4. Size of Accessory Dwelling Unit. The maximum size of an accessory dwelling unit may be no more than 50% of the gross square footage of the principal dwelling unit or 650 square feet


whichever is less. The minimum size of an accessory dwelling unit is that size specified and required by the adopted building code of the city.

5. Ownership. An accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separately or subdivided from the principal dwelling unit or lot.

6. Number of Residents. The total number of residents that may reside in an accessory dwelling unit may not exceed the number that is allowed for a family as defined in Section 21A.62.040, Definition of Terms.

7. Parking. An accessory dwelling unit that contains a studio or single bedroom, one additional on-site parking space is required. An accessory dwelling unit that contains two or more bedrooms, two additional on-site parking spaces is required. The City Transportation Director may approve a request to waive or modify the dimensions of the accessory dwelling unit parking space upon finding that the parking requirement for the principal dwelling is met and:

a. Adequate on-street parking in the immediate vicinity is available to serve the accessory dwelling unit and will not cause congestion in the area; or

b. The accessory dwelling unit is located within ¼ mile of a fixed transit line or an arterial street with a designated bus route.

Additionally, the City Transportation Director may allow tandem parking, within a legal location behind an existing on-site parking space, to meet the accessory dwelling unit parking requirement so long as the parking space requirement is met for the principal dwelling.

8. Location of Entrance to Accessory Dwelling Unit.

a. Internal or Attached Units. Accessory dwelling units that are internal to or attached to a principal dwelling may take access from an existing entrance on a street-facing front façade of the principal dwelling. No new entrances may be added to the front façade of a principal dwelling for an accessory dwelling unit unless such access is located at least twenty (20) feet behind the front façade of the principal dwelling unit.

b. Detached Units. Accessory dwelling units that are detached from the principal dwelling:

(1) May utilize an existing street-facing front façade entrance as long as the entrance is located a minimum of twenty (20) feet behind the front façade of the principal dwelling, or install a new entrance to the existing or new detached structure for the purpose of serving the accessory dwelling unit as long as the entrance is facing the rear or side of lot.

(2) Shall be located no closer than thirty (30) feet from the front property line and shall take access from an alley when one is present and accessible.

c. Corner Lots. On corner lots, existing entrances on the street-facing sides may be used for an accessory dwelling unit, but any new entrance shall be located facing toward the rear property line or interior side yard, or toward the back of the principal dwelling.

d. H Historic Preservation Overlay District. When accessory dwelling units are proposed in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District, the regulations and design guidelines governing these properties in Section 21A.34.020 shall take precedence over the location of entrance provisions above.

e. Side Entrance Exemption. Side entrance for an accessory dwelling unit shall not be subject to compliance with code 21A.24.010.H Side Entry Buildings of this title.


9. Exterior Design.

a. Within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Accessory dwelling units located within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall meet the process, regulations, and applicable design guidelines in Section 21A.34.020 of this title.

b. Outside H Historic Preservation Overlay District or Historic Landmark Site. Accessory dwelling units shall be regulated by the following exterior design standards:

(1) The maximum height of a detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the principal structure.

(2) An accessory dwelling unit shall be designed and constructed to be compatible with the principal structure.

10. Registration. Accessory dwelling units shall be registered with the city to evaluate whether the accessory dwelling unit initially meets applicable requirements; to ensure that the accessory dwelling unit meets health and safety requirements; to ensure that the property owner is aware of all city regulations governing accessory dwelling units; to ensure that the distribution and location of accessory dwelling units is known, to assist the City in assessing housing supply and demand; and to fulfill the Accessory Dwelling Units Purpose Statement listed above. To accomplish this, property owners seeking to establish an accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the following:

a. Building Permit. Apply for and obtain a building permit for the proposed accessory dwelling unit, regardless of method of creation;

b. Inspection. Ensure accessory dwelling unit is constructed, inspected, and approved in compliance with current building code;

c. Business License. Apply for and obtain an annual business license for the accessory dwelling unit in accordance with the applicable provisions of the city.

11. Occupancy. No accessory dwelling unit shall be occupied until the property owner obtains a business license for the accessory dwelling unit from the city.


Attachment B Residential Districts Map


Attachment C Transit Overlay Maps


Attachment D Sample Illustrations


Attachment E APA Quicknotes

Accessory Dwelling UnitsAccessory dwelling units (ADUs) are small, self-contained living units that typically have their ownkitchen, bedroom(s), and bathroom space. Often called granny flats, elder cottage housing opportuni-ties (ECHO), mother-daughter residences, or secondary dwelling units, ADUs are apartments that canbe located within the walls of an existing or newly constructed single-family home or can be an addi-tion to an existing home. They can also be freestanding cottages on the same lot as the principaldwelling unit or a conversion of a garage or barn.

The benefits to the home owner and the ADU occupant are many. For the home owner, ADUs providethe opportunity to offer an affordable and independent housing option to the owner’s grown son ordaughter just starting out or to an elderly parent or two who might need a helping hand nearby. Theunit could also be leased to unrelated individuals or newly established families, which would providethe dual benefit of providing affordable housing to the ADU occupant and supplemental rentalincome to the owner. Supplemental income could offset the high cost of a home mortgage, utilities,and real estate taxes. Finally, leasing an ADU to a young person or family can provide an elderly homeowner with a sense of security and an opportunity to exchange needed work around the house andyard for a discount on rent.

Despite the benefits, some communities resist allowing ADUs, or allow them only after time-consumingand costly review procedures and requirements. Public resistance to ADUs usually takes the form of aperceived concern that they might transform the character of the neighborhood, increase density, addto traffic, make parking on the street more difficult, increase school enrollment, and put additional pres-sure on fire and police service, parks, or water and wastewater. However, communities that have allowedADUs find that these perceived fears are mostly unfounded or overstated when ADUs are actually built.

ADUs are a particularly desirable option for many communities today considering the current econom-ic climate, changes in household size, increasing numbers of aging baby boomers, and the shortage ofaffordable housing choices. They provide a low-impact way for a community to expand its range ofhousing choices.

LOCALITIES AND STATES GET INTO THE ACTTowns, cities, and counties across the country have done the right thing by proactively amending localzoning ordinances to allow ADUs. This is typically done either as a matter of right or as a special or con-ditional use. In either case, reasonable conditions may be imposed. Some states, including California,have enacted legislation that limits the ability of localities to zone out ADUs.

In 2001 AARP retained APA’s Research Department to write a guidance report for citizens interested inconvincing local and state officials of the benefits of allowing ADUs and showing them how to do it.Entitled Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act andModel Local Ordinance, the monograph providesalternative statute and ordinance language useful to implementing all forms of ADUs.

TheModel Local Ordinance suggests recommendations for communities. Additionally, the intent of theordinance describes the permitting process for eligibility and approval, and further outlines standardsfor ADU approval pertaining to lot size, occupancy, building standards, parking and traffic, publichealth, and how to deal with nonconforming ADUs. TheModel State Act provides findings and policiesencouraging the approval of ADUs and names local governments as the entities entitled to authorize

Planning fundamentalsfor public officials andengaged citizens

A Publication of the American Planning Association | PAS QuickNotes No. 19

“Towns, cities, and

counties across the

country have done

the right thing by

proactively

amending local

zoning ordinances

to allow ADUs.”

OUICKNOTESThis PAS QuickNotes was prepared by APAresearch staff with contributions fromElisa L. Paster and Evan D. Fieldman,associates at the Paul Hastings law firm.

MM9518

Underline

For a complete list of references visithttp://www.planning.org/pas/quicknotes/

REFERENCES1. Published by AmericanPlanning Association

American Planning Association. “AffordableHousing Reader: Articles from ZoningNews and Zoning Practice. Available athttp://myapa.planning.org/affordablereader (members-only access).

American Planning Association. 2006.Policy Guide on Housing. Chicago: AmericanPlanning Association. Available atwww.planning.org/policy/guides/pdf/housing.pdf.

Baggett, Sharon, Nancy Chapman, andDeborah Howe. 1994. Planning for anAging Society. Planning Advisory ServiceReport no. 451. Chicago: AmericanPlanning Association.

For more information on this topic visitwww.planning.org.

adoption of an ADU statute. It specifiesthe limits to which local governmentsmay prohibit ADUs and outlinesdefault permitting provisions if a locali-ty does not adopt an ADU ordinance.It details optional approaches foradopting ADU ordinances, certifyinglocal ADU ordinances, gathering dataon ADU efforts, preparing reports andrecommendations, and forming astatewide board overseeing ADUs.

WHAT ISSUES ARISEWHEN APROPOSED ADU ORDINANCEIS CONSIDERED?ADU ordinances offer a variety of ben-efits to local communities but the roadto implementation may not be aneasy process. While ADUs are morewidely accepted now than in yearspast, skeptics still remain and some stilloppose ADU zoning. The followingdescribes some issues or decisionpoints that communities must addressin order to successfully navigate theperilous waters of public acceptance.The approach that is right for your cityor town will be unique, based on localphysical, political, social, and economic conditions.

By-right Permitting. Should permits for ADUs be issued as a matter of right (with clear standardsbuilt into the ordinance) or should they be allowed by discretion as a special or conditional use aftera public hearing?

Occupancy. Should ordinance language allow an ADU only on the condition that the owner of theproperty lives in one of the units?

Form of Ownership. Should the ordinance prohibit converting the ADU unit into a condominium?

Preexisting, nonconforming ADUs. How should the ordinance treat grandfathered ADUs? Howdo you treat illegal apartments that want to apply for an ADU permit?

Unit Size: Should the ordinance limit the square footage of the ADU to assure that the unit is trulyaccessory to the principal dwelling on the property?

Adequacy ofWater and Sewer Services. How do you guarantee there is enough capacity insewer lines, pumping stations, and treatment facilities to accommodate ADUs?

These are not easy issues. However, communities would do well to seriously consider adopting anapproach that: allows ADUs by right with clear written conditions; does not require owner occupan-cy; prohibits condominium ownership on the basis that a condo could not be considered accessory;provides a simple procedure for legalizing preexisting or formerly illegal apartments provided theunit is inspected; provides a generous size standard; and provides a water and sewer adequacy stan-dard.☐

PAS QuickNotes is a publication of the American Planning Association's Planning Advisory Service (PAS). Copyright © 2009. VisitPAS online at www.planning.org/pas to find out how PAS can work for you. American Planning Association staff: W. PaulFarmer, FAICP, Executive Director and CEO; William R. Klein, AICP, Director of Research and Advisory Services; Tre Jerdon,QuickNotes Editor; Tim Mennel, Senior Editor; Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor; Susan Deegan, Senior Graphic Designer.

Page 2

A Publication of the American Planning Association | PAS QuickNotes No. 19

Single story ADU floor plan.

David

BakerandPartnersArchitects


Attachment F News Article: Seattle Looks to Cottages

Seattle Looks to Cottages for Affordable Housing Cities are struggling to increase residential density without destroying single-family neighborhoods. That could mean the return of the backyard cottage.

Zach Patton | May 2011

It’s chilly, gray and raining.

In other words, it’s an utterly unremarkable spring day in Seattle, as the city’s urban planning supervisor Mike Podowski pulls up to a home in the Columbia City neighborhood southeast of downtown. The large clapboard-and-cedar house is a charming two-story Craftsman, but Podowski’s not interested. Instead, he makes a beeline for a freestanding structure in the backyard. “This is great!” he says, as the homeowner ushers him through a gate. “It’s an ideal set-up.”

Podowski has come to check in on one of Seattle’s fastest-growing new modes of housing: the backyard cottage. Since 2006, the city has allowed homeowners to build stand-alone cottages—officially known as “detached accessory dwelling units”—behind existing single-family homes. At first, the zoning change only applied to a few neighborhoods on the city’s south side, including Columbia City. But in November 2009, Seattle expanded the pilot program throughout the city, to any residential lot of at least 4,000 square feet. In the 18 months following the expansion, 57 backyard cottages have been permitted, and roughly 50 of those are either completed or nearly finished.

Like other mid-size cities that came of age in the first few decades of the 20th century, Seattle is made up largely of compact neighborhoods filled with single-family bungalows. Today, almost two-thirds of the city is zoned for single-family homes, so it’s harder for Seattle to accommodate its growing population—the city swelled from 563,374 residents in 2000 to 608,660 last year—without spreading farther and farther into the forests of the Pacific Northwest. That’s partly why the city saw backyard cottages as an attractive new alternative, a way to add affordable housing options without a wholesale redesign of the city’s signature neighborhoods.

These structures are small: Seattle’s code limits them to a footprint of 800 square feet, and they max out at 22 feet tall. Construction costs typically range from $50,000 to $80,000, although more elaborate units can cost upward of $140,000 to build. Some homeowners use the freestanding cottages as home offices, or as extra room for when relatives visit. Others are building them as in-law apartments for aging parents, or as crash pads for post-college children who can’t yet afford their own place. But a large number of homeowners are actually renting the cottages to tenants. (City law requires that the homeowners live on the property at least six months out of the year.) In some cases, the owners themselves have moved into the backyard cottage in order to rent out the larger house facing the street.

Seattle isn’t alone in its experiment with accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Localities everywhere from California to Minnesota to Massachusetts are re-examining their zoning laws and considering the role that ADUs can play in the makeup of their urban design. To be sure, there are plenty of critics who say backyard cottages are a bad idea, that renting out tiny apartments to strangers will destroy the character of a neighborhood. “We’re seeing both a continued resistance to [ADUs], but also a recognition that they provide a level of moderately priced housing,” says John McIlwain, a senior housing fellow at the Urban Land Institute. The “growing driver,” he says, are elderly parents who can’t afford nursing care, or who simply would rather age in place with their families. “That’s hard for a community to rally against,” he says. “And once you cross that threshold, it’s hard to exclude other uses for backyard cottages. We’re going to be seeing a lot more of this style of housing in the next several years.”

Backyard cottages are actually a throwback. Stand-alone in-law apartments, or “granny flats,” were common neighborhood features a century ago when multiple generations of a family lived together. By

the 1950s, however, Americans were decamping for the suburbs, pursuing the dream of a single-family home on a large tract of land. Many urban zoning codes of the second half of the century essentially banned the construction of new backyard cottages.

But as attitudes toward urban density have shifted in recent years—and as affordable housing has become scarce in many places—more and more cities have reconsidered the granny flat as an important part of a neighborhood. Portland, Ore., and Santa Cruz, Calif., both have strong backyard cottage programs. Chicago and Madison, Wis., have considered relaxing their prohibitions against ADUs. Denver last summer revamped its entire city zoning code and now permits stand-alone ADUs in certain neighborhoods. California in 2003 passed landmark legislation essentially forcing localities to allow ADUs. (However, because cities were allowed to design restrictions as narrowly as they wanted, the law hasn’t had as much impact as it could have. Pasadena, for example, only allows ADUs on lots larger than 15,000 square feet, and mandates that an ADU have its own two-car garage. Only one backyard cottage has been built in Pasadena since the 2003 law took effect.)

Not everyone is pleased. Critics say the additional residents put a crunch on available street parking. Some neighbors worry about privacy with a two-story cottage looming just over the property line. But the biggest concern tends to be the notion that allowing backyard rental cottages will irrevocably change the feel of a neighborhood. While Seattle was debating the cottages in 2009, one real estate agent called the city’s proposal a “de facto rezone of the entire city,” adding, “There will no longer be single-family neighborhoods in Seattle.”

Podowski acknowledges that vocal objections from some critics made it “challenging to get the legislation passed. People are very protective of their single-family neighborhoods, and they weren’t sure this was something that was going to fit in.”

But after the city’s three-year experiment with ADUs in the southeast part of town, Podowski’s office conducted a survey of residents living near a permitted backyard cottage to gauge the impact the units had on neighborhoods. What the city found was something of a surprise. Eighty-four percent of the respondents said the ADUs hadn’t had any discernible impact on parking or traffic. What’s more, most people didn’t even know they lived near an ADU, says Podowski. “More than half of them didn’t even realize there was a unit next door. It really helped us to show that a lot of the fears people had about these were not going to be realized.”

That positive feedback helped encourage the city to expand ADU zoning citywide. Council members also eliminated a cap on the number of backyard cottages that could be built in the city, and they rejected a proposed “dispersion” requirement, which would have limited the number of ADUs in a given neighborhood. The city prepared a design guide for homeowners, tips on being a good landlord and ideas for how to best respect neighbors’ privacy. Since then, the 57 new permits for backyard cottages number “in the ballpark” of what the city had predicted, says Podowski, and they’re evenly spread in neighborhoods across Seattle.

To hear Podowski tell it, the benefits of an ADU are relatively prosaic: They’re good for aging parents, or the rental income can help offset a homeowner’s mortgage. But in some ways, backyard cottages represent a bigger shift than that. “Cities are struggling with, ‘How on earth do you increase density in a suburban neighborhood of single-family homes?’” says Witold Rybczynski, an urbanism professor at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of Makeshift Metropolis and other books on urban planning. “The backyard cottage is an easy first step toward densification,” he says. Unlike high-rise residential towers or even mid-rise apartment buildings, Rybczynski says, backyard cottages “are an effective way to increase density without a radical change in neighborhood standards.” With the twin challenges of accommodating an aging population and providing diverse housing options to an ever-growing pool of residents, an increasing number of cities may find a solution right in their own backyards.

This article was printed from: http://www.governing.com/seattle-looks-cottages-affordable-housing-options.html


Attachment G Dr. Arthur C. Nelson PowerPoint

6/17/2011

1

Today’s lesson …

Accessory Dwelling UnitsAccessory Dwelling Units

Arthur C. Nelson, Ph.D. FAICPP id ti l P fPresidential ProfessorUniversity of Utah

Changing Household Size

YearSLC

HH SizeUS

HH SizeYear HH Si e HH Si e

1950 3.38 3.40

1960 3.29 3.29

1070 2.93 3.10

1980 2.60 2.76

1990 2.33 2.63

2000 2.48 2.59

2

2010 2.50 2.58

6/17/2011

2

Salt Lake City Households

Household Number Share

Total HH 72k

Family HH 38k 53%

Single HH 26k 37%

Nonfamily HH 8k 11%

3

Source: American Community Survey 2007‐09. Excludes group quarters.

Salt Lake City Households by Tenure

HH Type Rent

Family 34%

Single 54%

Nonfamily 64%

4

Source: American Community Survey 2007‐09. Excludes group quarters.

6/17/2011

3

People Turning 65 Each Year[Figures in 000s]

4000

4500

2500

3000

3500

Source: US Census Bureau – 65+ in the United States: 2005; Wan He, Manisha Sengupta, Victoria A. Velkoff, & Kimberly A DeBarros. December 2005.

1000

1500

2000

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

Multi-Generational Households

25

30

old

Sha

re

15

20

25

gen

erat

iona

l Hous

eho

19001910

19201930

19401950

19601970

19801990

20002008

Year

10

Mul

ti-g

Source: Adapted from The Return of the Multi‐Generational Family Household (Pew) byArthur C. Nelson, Presidential Professor & Director of Metropolitan Research, Univ. of Utah.

6/17/2011

4

Change in HHs 2010-2020Low High

Source: John McIlwain, ULI, 2010

Buy-Sell Rates by Age CohortAHS

9.0

10.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Buy Rate

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

55-59

60-64

65-69

70-74

75-79

80+

Sell Rate

Source: Dowell Myers & SungHo Ryu, “Aging Baby Boomers and the Generational Housing Bubble: Foresight and Mitigation of an Epic

6/17/2011

5

1.20

1.60Ca

lifor

nia

Alas

ka

Wyo

ming

Monta

na

Was

hing

ton

Hawai

i

Colora

do

Orego

n

UtahId

aho

New M

exico

Arizo

na

Neva

da

Michigan

Indian

a

Illinois

OhioWisc

onsin

North

Dak

ota

IowaMin

neso

ta

Nebr

aska

Kans

as

Sout

h Dak

ota

Louisia

na

Wes

t Virg

inia

Virg

inia

Missou

ri

Kent

ucky

Alab

ama

Mississ

ippi

Texa

s

Oklah

oma

Georg

ia

Tenn

esse

e

North

Car

olina

Arka

nsas

Sout

h Ca

rolin

a

Flor

ida

Conn

ectic

ut

New Y

ork

Rhod

e Island

Penn

sylvan

ia

Marylan

d

Maine

New Je

rsey

Massa

chus

et

Verm

ont

New H

De

WES MIDWES SOUT NORTHEA

Buy

0.00

0.40

0.80

BUYBUY

SELLSELL

THE GREAT SENIOR SELLTHE GREAT SENIOR SELL‐‐OFFOFF

-1.20

-0.80

-0.40

SM

SelSource: Dowell Myers & SungHo Ryu, “Aging Baby Boomers and the Generational Housing Bubble: Foresight and Mitigation of an Epic Transition”, Journal of the American Planning Association 74(1): 1‐17 (2007). Figures for net buying or selling rate age.

SELLSELL

Relocation Choices of Seniors

Before Move After MoveRental 20% 59%

Source: Arthur C. Nelson based on analysis of American Housing Survey 2005, 2007, 2009. New movers means moved in past five years. Annual senior movers are about 3% of all senior households; 60%+ of all seniors will change housing type between ages 65 and 85.

6/17/2011

6

New Housing Market Realities

• Sub-prime mortgages are history.20% d t ill b l• 20% down-payments will become normal– But only 1/3rd of HHs paid 20%+ down

• Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac are history.• Meaning

– Smaller homes maybe more people per unit– Smaller lots more attached units– More renters including doubled-up renters

QRM (as in squirm)

Qualified Residential MortgageLenders will need a 5% reserveLenders will need a 5% reserve.20% minimum down paymentOnly FHA-backed lending for low down

payments.Anyone with a 60 day delinquency in their Anyone with a 60 day delinquency in their

credit history in past 2 years will not qualify for a QRM.

6/17/2011

7

Effect of Higher Down Payment?

Percent of purchase price Percent Cumulative

No down payment 14% 14%

Less than 3 percent 8% 22%

3‐5 percent 12% 34%

6‐10 percent 16% 50%

11‐15 percent 6% 56%

16‐20 percent 13% 69%

21‐40 percent 13% 82%

41‐99 percent 7% 90%

Bought outright 10% 100%

Source: Adapted by Arthur C. Nelson from American Housing Survey 2009 (2010)

Life-Stage Flexibility Needed

14Source: Graphic by Ryan Sullivan. http://nwrenovation.com/green‐remodeling/accessory‐dwelling‐units‐%E2%80%94‐can‐granny‐flats‐save‐the‐world/

6/17/2011

8

• An Accessory Dwelling Unit is a secondary housing unit on the same property as a main

id

What is an ADU?

residence. • ADUs are also called accessory apartments,

in-law apartments, family apartments, or secondary units, “granny flats”, etc.

• ADUs are not duplexes:p– ADU is subsidiary to the main residence– Owner of ADU usually lives on the property

• ADUs are self-contained

Why consider an ADU Option?

• Shrinking household size• Rising real estate costs• Aging population• Neighborhood stability• Character of neighborhoods• Environmental benefits

6/17/2011

9

Public ADU Benefits• Increases tax revenues• Minimizes subsidies for affordable

units• Maximizes use of existing

infrastructure and services• Keeps growing/aging families together• Preserves existing housing/historic

structures• Promotes safer and stable neighborhoods

Private ADU Benefits

• Homeowners – rental income• Local businesses – employee housing• Real estate firms – rental stock • Residential contractors – remodeling g• Lending institutions – home

improvement loans

6/17/2011

10

Who typically builds ADUs?

• Older singles/couplesOlder singles/couples• Middle-aged "empty nesters"• Younger singles/couples• Single working parentsg g p• People who travel often

• Apartments in single-family homes

How and where are ADUs built?

• Apartments in single-family homes• Additions to homes• Conversion of garages/secondary

structures• Free-standing cottages• Free-standing cottages• Designed into new construction

6/17/2011

11

21

Summary of ADU Benefits• Creates new housing using existing

infrastructure and servicesinfrastructure and services• Reduces energy consumption• Generates community economic

development• Reduces costs for the elderly• Reduces costs for the elderly• Preserves housing stock and

neighborhood stability

6/17/2011

12

US ADU Household Market

All 65+ Households with HHs HHs

Relatives other than spouse/children 21% 16%

Nonrelatives 10% 5%

Total other relatives or nonrelatives 31% 21%

23

Source: American Housing Survey for 2009.

Salt Lake City ADU Demand 2030?

250 000 Population250,000 Population100,000 Households50,000 Single & Nonfamily HHs30,000 Demand for ADU-like options

~2-sq mi of land saved from development~2-sq. mi. of land saved from development~$100M saved from new infrastructure

24

6/17/2011

13

25

TODs and Energy Consumption

‐55%57%

Source: Adapted from Jonathan Rose Companies (2011) for EPA.

‐57%

‐60%


Attachment H Public Input Chronology and Notes

Public Input Chronology Sustainable City Code Initiative—Accessory Dwelling Units

December 2009 General Information about Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in Urbanus—the monthly Planning Division e-newsletter

December 2009 Fact sheet and draft ordinance posted to Planning Division website

December 17, 2009 Open House: all people on ListServe notified of open house, including all community council chairs

July 1, 2010 Second article about ADUs in Urbanus—the monthly Planning Division e-newsletter

July 14, 2010 Focus Group: Clarion met with Focus Group made up of community council chairs, citizens, housing builders and housing advocates

July 15, 2010 Open House / Public Forum at Salt Lake City Library conducted by Clarion Associates

September 1, 2010 Open City Hall forum began (20 comments as of November 4, 2010)

September 2, 2010 Presented information to Community Council Chairs at Mayor’s breakfast meeting with Community Council Chairs

September 16, 2010 Presented information at Salt Lake Network meeting

October 21, 2010 Public Forum – City Hall

October 27, 2010 Wasatch Hollow Community Council

November 10, 2010 Planning Commission Work Session

December 9, 2010 Planning Commission Briefing. Clarion Associates and Mayor Becker attended meeting

January 5, 2011 Presentation to the Utah Housing Coalition

February 3, 2011 Presented information to Community Council Chairs at Mayor’s breakfast meeting with Community Council Chairs

February 9, 2011 Presentation at the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board Meeting

February 17, 2011 Presentation at Housing Trust Fund Board Lunch

February 17, 2011 Open House: all people on ListServe notified of open house, including all community council chairs

February 22, 2011 Presentation at the Mayor's Accessible Services Advisory Council.

February 23, 2011 Planning Commission Work Session

March 2, 2011 Historic Landmark Commission Work Session

March 9, 2011 Follow-up meeting with Housing Advisory and Appeals Board

March 23, 2011 Planning Commission Public Hearing

June 8, 2011 Planning Commission Briefing by Dr. Arthur C. Nelson, University of Utah

June 22, 2011 Planning Commission Public Hearing

ADU Focus Group

July 14, 2010

Present:

Cindy Cromer-Property Owner/ Landlord

Roger Borgenicht- Assist

Phil Carlson- Sugar House Community Council Chair

Gordon Storrs- Fairpark Community Council Chair

Phil Carroll- Community Housing Services and Avenues Community Council member

Bob Lund- NeighborWorks

Sonya Martinez-Community Action Program

Francisca Blanc- Utah Housing Corporation

Justin Allen- Salt Lake Board of Realty

Paul Smith- Utah Apartment Association

Annalisa Steggell Holcombe- Westminster College

Michael Michaffey- Contractor

Arla Funk- Landlord and East Central Community Council member

Richard Welch- Garbett Homes

Staff

Cheri Coffey- Planning Staff

Joyce Algiers- Clarion Associates

Chris Duerkson-Clarion Associates

Questions and Comments

Richard Welch. The Accessory Structure with Dwelling Unit on Capitol Hill that was built by Bryson Garbett is much bigger than proposal would allow. It is basically a carriage house for the Wolfe Mansion. The regulation should allow the ADU to be larger if lot and structure can handle it. Requirement for a

setback of a garage versus a setback for a residential setback is conflicting. The setback for the garage is too much (has to be within 5 feet of rear yard setback).

Cheri Coffey- Should we only require a duplex to have a minimum of 6,000 square feet like we used to have, rather than the minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet that was put in place with the 1995 Zoning Rewrite Project?

Phil Carlson- SHMP policy supports ADUs. The requirement for owner occupancy is important. Many ADUs already exist.

Roger Borgenicht- The owner occupancy regulation is good to help manage problems but what if owner moves. Parking is not an issue. Do not pave more of the lot. Just allow them to park on street. Benefit of ADUs is that it provides more eyes in the neighborhood. Privacy in backyard may be an issue. Require them to be built so they don’t overlook the neighbor’s. (Regulate where windows can be, etc.)

Michael Michaffey- Parking is an issue in Avenues and Sugar House. Should allow parking in front of the front wall of the house. Current regulations require the parking to be located behind the front wall of the house.

Analissa Steggell Holcombe. It is good to have more housing options near the college. Young professionals (staff, faculty of college, etc) like to live near the college. An ADU would minimize the price of housing and allow them to reduce their commute times. Owner occupied-The regulation may not work well. Good landlords can result in the same benefit that an owner occupied rental would have (solving problems quickly).

Arla Funk- The timing of the proposal is inappropriate. There currently are a lot of vacant apartments. Don’t believe that everyone in an R-1 zone should be able to have an ADU. If you want to have two family, just rezone to R-2 and call them duplexes. Allowing a two story garage with ADU for a single-story home is conflicting. Don’t allow Conditional Home Occupations where someone can come to the home. That would only increase the disturbance in the neighborhood. Don’t allow someone to convert more than 650 square feet to an ADU. You need to specify a minimum size. You need to be very specific because enforcement doesn’t work. Being able to address problems will be very difficult.

Gordon Storrs- There are many benefits to ADUs: they increase housing options, keep people in the neighborhood, allows elderly to stay in the neighborhood. Allow younger married kids to get help when they are just starting out (help from parents); strengthens families and increases owner occupancy. How do you maintain an ADU if the owner sells the property (what happens to the tenant? Increases permanent housing in the City. Allow ADUs to be built within one foot of rear yards. The size should be geared to the size of the lot. Some lots are really deep. Allowing a use like this would help clean up rear yards that now are so deep, they just are unkempt.

Paul Smith- Agrees with the requirement for owner occupancy. Landlords want to be good neighbors. One bedroom u7nits are hard to rent. May have a saturated market of one bedroom units. If they have more than one bedroom, you should require more parking. ADUs should be licensed.

Justin Allen- The requirement for owner occupancy will be difficult because the owner may need to sell the property. Encourage them to be located near transit / streetcar. Good landlord program is a good idea. It may help with enforcement.

Francisca Blanc. We support ADUs as an affordable housing type in single family neighborhoods. Utah Housing Corporation focuses more on multi-family. ADUs should be licensed to protect tenants. Perhaps you could have a pilot program relating to parking. If they are located near TRAX they aren’t required to have parking. If not located near TRAX, they would need to met a parking requirement.

Sonya Martinez. CAP’s focus is on low income population. They support more choices for affordable housing. They support requiring a license for the units. They want to ensure they are inspected. They support allowing the owner to live in the ADU with the rental unit being the primary unit. They believe there needs to be some type of tenant protection. Allow the lease to transfer with the property if it is sold. What happens if the property goes in to foreclosure?

Bob Lund- Large lots present a good opportunity for ADUs. Must address issues with how the ADU is placed on the lot to address privacy, egress windows etc. Must ensure they meet some type of health, safety code.

Cindy Cromer- ADUs should be allowed where they are served by fixed mass transit. Requiring a license for single family and two family dwellings is being reviewed. The City is bad at enforcement. Allow more units when they are zoned multi-family but are on small lots that wouldn’t otherwise allow for an additional unit. How does this relate to the Unit legalization process? How does it relate to compatible infill regulations? How do you enforce on ADUs if the criteria is not met? Need to allow these incrementally. Create a pilot program to see how it works. Try it in areas where the master plan supports it, near transit, and historic districts (as an incentive). ADUs will compete with landlords who are trying to rent small units in multi-family buildings.

Phil Carroll- All rental units, including ADUs should be licensed. They should all meet minimum standards for health and safety. All ADUs should be accessible. Allow the person who develops these to determine how big they should be. Some larger units you can’t rent. A two bedroom, two bath unit is usually 1100 square foot minimum. Need to overcome issues / problems with rental houses.

Accessory Dwelling Units: Mayor’s Monthly Meeting with Community Council Chairs September 1, 2010

Comments:

Judi Short‐ Sugar House Land Use Chair‐ How are you going to address enforcement of illegal units. It is

already an issue and the City’s enforcement is not adequate.

Christian Harrison‐ Downtown Chair‐ The requirement to have off‐street parking is not square with the

goals of the transportation to encourage walking and other non‐private automobile forms of circulation.

Christian Harrison‐Downtown Chair As a phase II for ADUs, you should allow them as Condos so it

addresses Downtown Housing. Sometimes you may buy two units, combine them and then separate

them again to allow for a smaller unit (mother‐in‐law etc.)

Phil Carlson‐ Sugar House Chair(I’m not sure if he said the regulations for parking are ok, or if it is ok if

people park on the street.

Jim Jenkin‐ Avenues Chair‐ in the SR‐1A, there is a restriction on height for accessory structures. The

reason for this is that you don’t have a right to have your accessory structure impact your neighbor from

a privacy issue. Therefore, you wouldn’t be able to have a unit over a garage. How do you address that?

Bill Davis‐Ballpark Chair There should be design guidelines for Accessory Dwelling Units. The City needs

to move more towards design guidelines.

Christian Harrison‐Downtown Chair; The City needs design guidelines and review in areas other than

just in historic districts.

Esther Hunter; East Central Chair‐ There are a lot of illegal units in East Central. There needs to be

criteria for parking. There is a lot of transit in the area but people don’t use it. They now address the

lack of parking in the area with 45 degree on‐street parking. How does the Transportation Division

decide if there is enough parking on the whole block. Some uses were built without parking and aren’t

required to have it but their lack of parking, impacts the whole block and the on‐street parking is used

for those uses that are under parked.

Other East Central Guy? If you allow on‐street parking to meet the requirement and you can’t park on

the street for more than 72 hours at a time, what do you do with your car when you go on vacation?

How do smaller lots deal with this? There are many lots in East Central that have back alleys. Ideally,

you would put the ADU back there but if the lot is too small, can you still do it?

How does this relate to Unit Legalization?

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM

Office of the Mayor

TO: Mayor Ralph Becker

FROM: Michael Stott, ADA Coordinator, on behalf of The Accessibility Services Advisory Council (ASAC)

SUBJECT: Recommendation on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU‟s) in the Sustainability Initiative

DATE: February 22, 2011

CC: David Everitt; Karen Hale; Cheri Coffey; Michael Maloy

BACKGROUND

On January 25, 2011, the Accessibility Services Advisory Council (ASAC), an advisory council to the mayor on disability and accessibility issues in Salt Lake City government, recommended the following to Mayor Becker:

“ASAC recommends that City staff and decision-makers involved in the sustainability initiative evaluate various alternatives with consideration for how people with various types of disabilities (including but not limited to physical, cognitive, and sensory disabilities) will be able to participate in or benefit from the solutions implemented. We recommend incorporating to the extent possible principles of universal design and visitability to the benefit of not only the disability community but to people of all types of ability ranging from infants riding in strollers to senior citizens interested in „aging in place.‟ ASAC encourages and strongly recommends the assurance that ADA compliance be met and even exceeded in addressing all applicable focus areas of the sustainability initiative. ASAC will review the sustainability initiative in greater detail to determine if there are any opportunities for constructive feedback and specific suggestions.”

2

RECOMMENDATION

On February 22, 2011, ASAC voted and unanimously approved the following specific recommendation to Mayor Ralph Becker and others involved in the sustainability initiative:

Housing that is accessible should be an important consideration in the effort to promote a diverse and sustainable housing stock in Salt Lake City. In order to increase the availability of accessible housing in Salt Lake City, ASAC recommends incorporating a new concept called “Accessible ADU‟s” into the Accessory Dwelling Units ordinance in the following ways:

1. Add the following size exception for “Accessible ADU‟s”: For ADU‟s that are “visitable” (that have a no-step entry, adequate doorways, and a usable bathroom) and that have “accessible living quarters,” an exception would be granted on the maximum size of the ADU. For example, an additional 150 sqft could be added on top of the 50% or 650 sqft maximum size rule, resulting in a maximum size of 50% plus 150 sqft or 800 sqft, whichever is less. (The additional amount of 150 sqft seems reasonable to ASAC but the amount is negotiable.)

a. Visitability Features:

i. No-Step Entry: The dwelling unit can be accessed without having to step up or down.

ii. Adequate Doorways: 32” clear opening, low threshold of ¼” step or ½” ramp

iii. Usable Bathroom: 30” x 48” clear space (outside of the door swing space) within the bathroom

b. Accessible Living Quarters: A bedroom or sleeping area can be accessed without having to step up or down.

2. Modify the Permit Allocation section in the ordinance as follows: Require that 20% of the maximum allowable number of ADU permits per year be “Accessible ADU‟s” that meet the Accessible ADU requirements. For example, 20% of the maximum 25 permits per year would mean that 5 out of 25 permits would be reserved for Accessible ADU‟s and not more than 20 ADU‟s that are not accessible would be permitted that year.


Attachment I Public Comments

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)

What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing AccessoryDwelling Units?

Public comments as of June 13, 2011, 4:39 PM

All Participants Around Salt Lake City

As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are notnecessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or electedofficials.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)

What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing AccessoryDwelling Units?

Introduction

As part of the Sustainability Code Amendment Project, the Planning Division is currently working withClarion Associates to propose regulations which would allow accessory dwelling units in Salt LakeCity. The Planning Division is currently working to obtain public feedback on the proposedregulations prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission. The proposedregulations would be a text amendment to the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

Page 1 of 15Public comments as of June 13, 2011, 4:39 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/512

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing AccessoryDwelling Units?


Total: 0

As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are notnecessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or electedofficials.

As of June 13, 2011, 4:39 PM, this forum had:

Attendees: 421Participants Around Salt Lake City: 34Hours of Public Comment: 1.7

Page 2 of 15Public comments as of June 13, 2011, 4:39 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/512

Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City May 8, 2011, 3:24 PM

I oppose the ADU proposal. Every neighbor I have spoken to thinks it is a bad initiative. There may beplaces in town where it is useful and beneficial but certainly not in the smaller R-1 areas. The city willnot enforce the owner occupancy requirement after initial approval any more than they seek out thethousands of existing illegal appartments. Further the city will not be sensitive to the parkingcongestion and find the will to deny permits to owners who don't have unblocked offstreet parkingspace. This will just let everyone feel that they have the right to convert their R-1 into an R-2everywhere in the city. Since the Mayor won't, the City Council should kill this bad idea.

Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City February 24, 2011, 9:32 AM

I oppose implementation of ADU in the areas outlined by Mayor Becker and his plan.

Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City February 20, 2011, 7:47 AM

I am against ADU's. Time and time again, during our local historic district discussions, many of ushave been saying we do not want a sea of rentals. Is the City listening? ADU's will increase thenumber of rentals and end up lowering our property values. It takes away from the style and charm ofYalecrest.

Brad Bartholomew inside Salt Lake City February 16, 2011, 2:04 AM

I think that this is fantastic and would be beneficial to the Rose Park area. The owner occupancy is aMUST and I'm not sure if I agree with the exceptions. ADU's could be an incentive to bring morehome ownership into the westside neighborhoods and fewer absentee rentals. I'm not sure why thereis a square foot size limit - it should just be a percentage of the lot, 50%. Set backs shouldn't be anydifferent from conforming principle dwelling. I don't see the need of the entrance requirements, itsalso a burden on corner lots that already have smaller usable lots. Exterior design should be requiredto match the existing residence. If you do decide with a test area first, I hope that it is the westside ofSLC.

Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City February 1, 2011, 12:48 PM

Some years ago the home owners of our surrounding neighborhoods worked in conjunction with thenMayor Ted Wilson to change our communities zoning back to single family residential (R1). Thischange was motivated by the fact that this section of the city was in bad shape and deteriorating.Crime rates were high and low property values lured developers to target our vintage neighborhoodsto build apartment units or divide existing homes into duplexes. At that time, the Mayor’s officedeemed this downward trend unacceptable and believed that the preservation of single family homesand strong neighborhood communities were in the vital interest of Salt Lake City. As a result of thiszoning change, our quaint and quiet neighborhoods have flourished. New families have moved in,pride in ownership has soared, homes have been restored, and our property values haveappreciated. Our neighborhoods are amongst the most desirable to live in the Salt Lake valley.

Unfortunately, Mayor Ralph Becker is proposing an initiative that will circumvent our current zoninglaws, posing a direct threat to our neighborhoods as they currently exists. Mayor Becker wants

Page 3 of 15


Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units?

Public comments as of June 13, 2011, 4:39 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/512

Accessory Dwelling Units, or ADU’s, be allowed to be built on existing single family lots. This proposalcompletely undermines the single family philosophy that was successfully promoted by Mayor Wilsonand takes us back to what previously plagued our community.

In short, Mayor Becker's proposed change to the zoning laws that have allowed our neighborhood toprosper, will, in effect, promote the subdivision of houses back to the same cheap rental propertiesthat threatened our community in the past. The Mayor’s office attempts to mask the monumentalimpact that this change will have on our neighborhoods by promoting alleged benefits that a verysmall portion of our community may gain. The Mayor’s plan increases population density, but does notprovide for increased infrastructure or services; as if these additional people will be without need orwill not put additional strain on existing services and dismisses the reality that they will have cars topark and trash to empty. The Mayor’s plan proposes very vague concepts, backs them up with littlesubstance, yet wants to implement this plan faster and more aggressively than any other city that hasallowed ADU’s.

The ADU proposal is not about existing rentals, it is about the encouragement of developing new,additional rentals. I have researched other cities’ ADU’s and the Salt Lake City plan is vague anddoesn’t take neighborhood impact into consideration.

These are my specific suggestions:

Issues not addressed in this proposal: 1.Minimum lot size 5000sq ft 2.Require formal review for design compatibility with adjacent properties and impact of privacy, light,air, solar access or adjacent property parking 3.Open space and landscaping requirements (would you like a cement covered lot?) 4.Minimize windows that impact privacy - Little or no direct view into neighbor's property 5.Regulate the concentration of ADU’s in specific neighborhoods 6.Power, water, sewer connections should be through current house 7.Number of bedrooms tied to number of mandatory parking spaces (no waivers for proximity to bus,rail or business districts) 8. Require review process similar to variance procedures

Issues addressed in this proposal and my suggestions: D.2.a. Owner occupied property required •What is the definition of an owner? How far does this reach to extended family? •What defines owner occupied? 6 months occupancy? a year? This should require a yearlycertification. •If the owner does not occupy either unit, the ADU should be declared: a. non-habitable space, and b. may not be used as a dwelling ,and c. may not be used as a rented space

Page 4 of 15




D.2.c. Underlying Zoning applies. “if there is a conflict...the provisions of this section shall takeprecedence.” •There should be additional restrictions in place in addition to the existing setbacks. •Currently: Max height (pitched) 28’ and flat (20’) (21A.24.070) Setbacks: -accessory building 10’ from residential building on adjacent lot, located at least 1’ from side propertyline (21A.34.020) - primary residence corner lot 4’, interior lot 4’ on one side and 10’ on the other (24A.24.200)

•Create decreased height allowances and increased distances from property line for the ADU •Max height for 1 story- 13’, 1.5 or 2 story – 22’ at roof peak, •for ADU’s higher than 1 story, increase setback additional 2 to 5 feet •Lot coverage of ADU count toward parcel maximum building coverage (40% of lot – also known asthe 60/40 rule) – this should be reduced to 35% on lots with ADU’s •Only allowed with existing single family PRIMARY residence

D.3. Methods of Creation •Specifically prohibit trailers and mobile homes •Set a minimum size to 220-400 sq ft •Maximum size 500 sq ft for 5000 to 7500 sq ft lot, 650 sq ft for larger lots •Demolition of existing unit not allowed for ADU construction •Require similar exterior wall materials, window types, door and window trim, roofing materials toexisting home

D.5 Ownership/ Number of residents “the total number of residents...may not [be] exceed[ed]...as defined in the zoning code”

•Limit the number of bedrooms to one (1) and define number of residents in ADU by number (2-3people max), not by definition of family

Zoning Ordinance limits occupancy through the definition of a family. Family is defined as bloodrelatives, a couple or legal guardians living together with their children, or a group of not more thanthree unrelated individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit. The definition controlsoccupancy regardless of the size of the unit.

For example: 10 individuals could occupy a 650 sq ft ADU (myself, my husband, my parents, hisfather and 5 children)

This ADU proposal is not well thought out and will have a significant impact on our communities asneighborhoods.

I oppose this proposal.

Page 5 of 15




Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City January 27, 2011, 12:57 PM

I DO NOT Support ADU's. I do not support and increased number of rental apartments in myneighborhood. I am opposed to someone legally building an overlooking apartment into my backyard.


Great idea, with owner occupancy required no harm done to neighborhoods. Size restrictions shouldalso prevent "Monster ADU's" from becoming a problem. Great way to utilize additional available landwhile respecting the traditional nature of our neighborhoods.

Paige Pitcher inside Salt Lake City January 11, 2011, 1:13 PM

I am in strong support of the ADU ordinance, so long as the application and adoption is sensitive tothe valid concerns of residents like those below. ADU's need not be an allowed use in every zone.There are some communities that they are obviously not compatible with. On this matter, I amsympathetic to the wise observations of Beverly Nelson.

So far, only the neighborhoods of Federal Heights and Avenues have cried out in opposition, saying--NO! Not Here! But just because they don't want it in their backyards doesn't mean that ADU's don'thave a purpose and place somewhere in SLC. One of the questions the fact sheet posed, that noone has yet answered, was, "Where?" My suggestions are next to transit, business districts,employment centers, educational institutions, and other draws where a mix of housing types makessense. Locating some appropriate spots for a pilot program would be a great approach and example.

May I also entertain some other applications of ADU's for neighborhoods in need. Neighborhoodsthat want to increase home ownership might be the same neighborhoods to implement ADU's in orderto reward people who choose to buy and live in the area. Coupled with home ownership incentivesthis might be one way to create a diverse, cohesive community while rewarding home owners.

ADU's are an important part of housing choices, and the legalization of this legitimate housing optionneeds to be addressed. As our demographic continues to shift, the demand for centrally located,attainable housing will continue to be raised by our aging boomers, young professionals and families.This flexible option will help us respond to demographic shifts before they become an issue.

So long as design and quality standards for ADU's remain high, I believe they can be integrated intoour existing amenities, community fabric, and public infrastructure systems to increase our resiliency,sustainability and unity.


I live in the Fremont Heights neighborhood of Salt Lake City. Having been raised in a California

Page 6 of 15




community with legal and illegal "mother-in-laws" adjacent and included in existing homes I mustregister my opinion on this proposal as I believe I have adequate experience with the consequences. Allowing carve-out rental units in existing houses and permitting the construction of "stand-alone"apartment-type units on developed lots simply increases population density and facilitates a moretransient character in a residential neighborhood. Parking is always a problem, as is noise, streetactivity, and conflict between neighbors.

Additional garbage collection is required, as is additional utilities maintenance, adding a burden to thedelivery of city services. Additional people draw additional services. The frequency of deliveryvehicles in the neighborhood rises, as does the traffic generated by gardeners, housekeepers, babysitters, and visiting medical, mechanical maintenance and repair people, and a multitude of "soft"services. In short, the character of the neighborhood radically changes over time and the long-term residentsfind that they now live in a neighborhood they would never have chosen had the "mother-in-laws" notbeen permitted in the first place. This leads to an embittered, hostile population that becomes "super-sensitive" to any changes in the neighborhood, even positive ones that benefit everyone.

Legal "mother-in-laws" are not a win-win situation. I have lived in an older neighborhood sandwichedin between two properties with legal mother-in-laws and have personally experienced thehelplessness of watching my neighborhood become an indifferent, transient, "I don't care, it doesn'teffect me" kind of place. The homeowners on either side were generally embarrassed by theirindifferent tenants and avoided others in the neighborhood, ignoring our common concerns andremoving themselves from cooperative projects and issues. I hope Salt Lake City does not want thiskind of atmosphere to take hold in its greatly-varied, generally well-maintained and pleasant olderneighborhoods.

Despite all the altruistic arguments in favor of ADUs, my direct experience has been that such anordinance would allow those who want to squeeze additional revenue from their real property, at theexpense of those living around them, to do so without restriction. Permitting sand-alone and carve-out"mother-in-laws" degrades residential property values and the quality of life in R1 residentialneighborhoods. Such an ordinance would create an underclass of renters in a residentialneighborhood with little political power and likely no interest in the rational development and quality oflife in the neighborhood as a whole. I feel that permitting ADUs in R1 neighborhoods is a very badidea.

Also, please note that Mike Kephart, who has posted a comment here and has promoted ADUs inother discussions on this site, designs stand-alone ADUs and lives in Colorado. He would obviouslypersonally benefit from the passage of this ordinance.

I strongly recommend that Salt Lake City reject this proposed ordinance.

Michel Weekley inside Salt Lake City January 7, 2011, 10:51 PM

I agree with Susan Fisher's November 1 posting completely.

Page 7 of 15




I am against ADUs in the already crowded & densely populated Avenues neighborhood. As anAvenues homeowner, I am shocked & saddened that this proposal is even being considered. Theproposal would undo all the good that years of work to get the Avenues back to a "single-famliydwelling" atmosphere have achieved. There are very few aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods in theSalt Lake Valley, and encouraging more development in and around many "historic" and beautifulAvenues homes is an unwise choice.

I believe we can work toward "sustainability" in Salt Lake, not by more development & the building ofever more structures....but rather by filling the plethora of empty homes & rentals currently availableen masse.

A "sustainability" topic that gets very little attention these days is to encourage the creation of smallerfamilies....NOT the continuing accomodation of huge ones! Fewer people in the first place equals lesspollution, less development, less crowding....and a better quality of life for everyone. Responsiblepopulation growth could alleviate many of our societal challenges, both locally & globally.

Matt Johnson inside Salt Lake City December 8, 2010, 4:12 PM

I like the general idea but I have a few concerns. Why 650 sqft? Is that the difference between a duplex and an ADU? If a lot is big enough could theADU not be bigger? What about new home construction? Can a new home be built with an ADU included in the plans?Where would the door be? What about end of life scenarios? The plan says that it must be an owner occupied situation, butwhat if the home is sold, the tenants are kicked out and the new owners now have extra living spacethat they get taxed extra for? And if the tenants decide to move out, does that mean I now have anabove-the-garage shop where I couldn’t have one before? I also agree that we should allow businesses similar accommodations as ADUs like an in-home office,but for someone else.

Mike Kephart outside Salt Lake City November 28, 2010, 2:59 PM

ADUs use resources very efficiently compared to many other types of residential development. Theyrequire no additional land for development and use existing infrastructure (such as water, sewer,roads, and other utilities), so they increase the supply of affordable housing without promoting sprawlor requiring the construction of expensive new infrastructure.

Clarion, your code consultant, helped us here in Denver as well. As unbelievably contentious as thesubject was for us the atmosphere immediately cooled upon passage of the ordinance by our citycouncil. The fear of a rush to build is a red herring that has not proven real in any of the 20 or 30cities in Colorado that have passed similar ordinances in the last few years. It was over two yearsbefore the first ADU was built in Arvada, CO after they passed their ordinance without major publicdebate. I believe ADUs are a legitimate housing type that over time can do much to diversify ourneighborhoods economically. I support your efforts to include provisions for ADUs in yourneighborhoods. The excitement will quickly dissipate.

Page 8 of 15




Mike Kephart, Denver, CO

Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City November 10, 2010, 11:17 AM

Owner occupancy, owner occupancy, owner occupancy, strict enforcement of owner occupancy.Otherwise this is a carte blanch for house flippers, and slumlords.

Occupancy of one unit must be full time by the actual living person with majority interest listed on theownership deed. Do not allow ownership by "trusts","corportations" or any other entitiy. Otherwisethey will always claim that their family trust allows them to rent to "family" with different last names(aka, someone who isn't family at all, but the true owner is willing to bet that the city will never checkbecause it is too expensive and time consuming)

Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City November 7, 2010, 9:10 AM

I support ADU's

Susan Fisher inside Salt Lake City November 1, 2010, 3:09 PM

As a 41-year resident of the Greater Avenues, I have some perspective on their history. First, let mesay that the quality of the Avenues as a place to live and raise a family is far better now than it waseven twenty years ago, and one of the principle reasons is that residents have fought to limit density,often by re-converting apartments back into single-family structures. Furthermore, the few apartmentsthat existed in lower Federal Heights from the Depression era have been phased out over the years.One can scarcely argue that residents found an additional apartment in their home a desirable thing.We appreciate R-1 zoning precisely because it disallows multiple-family dwellings.

There are two density issues in this proposed ADU ordinance, and they are not clearly and separatelyaddressed: building density and population density. I was astounded to read in the proposedordinance that an ADU is expressly interpreted as NOT increasing density! Clearly, only structuraldensity is considered here at all, and adding an additional structure would increase even thatparameter. Common sense indicates that increased population density means more cars, more traffic,more ambient noise, more school children (in already overcrowded schools), increased use of alreadyoverburdened parks, less play area at home per child, etc. The proposed ordinance even stipulatedthat additional off-street parking space provisions can be waived, thus adding to street congestion. Icannot see that this would improve quality of life in any respect. I saw the dramatic results ofdecreased population density and noise – and increased resident satisfaction – in my ownneighborhood when the Pi Kappa Alpha house burned and the fraternity was relocated.

Furthermore, the implied altruism for assisting an aging population is weak. As an older resident, Icannot believe that having a separate apartment in my home would provide me with increased“companionship and services.” No renter is legally bound to watch out for the landlord. In addition, itwould be a long time before the cost of creating an apartment would be amortized by rental income;

Page 9 of 15




even a reverse mortgage would be faster and less demoralizing for both resident and neighborhood.The proposed ordinance does not offer any protection at all for the character of the existingneighborhood. It is inappropriate to force such a far-reaching ordinance change upon us whenHistoric District designation for Federal Heights is under consideration. The City Council shouldconsider carefully the vested interests of those who propose to change the integral character of asingle-family district. I think the respondent who proposed high-rise apartments (with undergroundparking) on already existing parking lots is on the right track.

The truth of the matter is that one of the first things people buy is privacy, and this is usuallyexpressed first in the space they can place between themselves and their neighbors. Federal Heightshas larger lots, and the coverage is far less than the city-allowed 40%. Indeed, even the smallest lotsin this zone average only 25-30% coverage, while on the larger lots the coverage is even less. Thislower density is directly correlated to house prices and the increased taxes they generate. Peopleconsistently demonstrate they are willing to pay for privacy and what it brings: less traffic, less noise,more space – and the joy of more big trees. This proposed ordinance would degrade our quality oflife.

Beverly Nelson inside Salt Lake City October 28, 2010, 12:41 AM

An ordinance allowing homeowners to build accessory dwelling units on their property could providebenefits to homeowners, families, the elderly and renters in some Salt Lake communities. But ADUsshould not be considered to be a panacea for every neighborhood in Salt Lake. There areneighborhoods in Salt Lake where accessory dwellings would not be appropriate, particularly thosewhere high density is already an issue, where crime is high, and where schools already suffer fromover-population. To allow residents to built accessory dwelling units on properties in theseneighborhoods would only serve to exacerbate the problems they are already dealing with and wouldbe detrimental to the entire community.

In regard to my own community, I live in lower Federal Heights in close proximity to Universityfraternities and sororities. My community already suffers from lack of parking, traffic congestion,excessive noise and crime. We already have problems with duplexes that started out as mother-in-law apartments 20 or 30 years ago, but that now house University students who, unfortunately, think itis cool to disrespect the community in which they live. I would not support an ordinance that allowedmy neighbors, or residents in areas of the City that are experiencing the problems I have listed tobuild accessory dwellings on their properties.

Gene Fitzgerald inside Salt Lake City October 27, 2010, 9:32 AM

As president of the Federal Heights Neighborhood association and a member of the board of theGACC I think I can say that in general we oppose the move toward allowing accessory dwelling units.In our neighborhoods especially (Butler ave, Federal way etc) over the years we have had many rentalunits that were merely extensions of Greek housing and the problems that accompany thoseorganizations. In the past 20 years or so, we have been moving toward and achieving morerestrictive zoning rather than moving toward rental units in family homes. The ADU wouldsignificantly change that dynamic and open up homes in the area to the sort of abuse that we have

Page 10 of 15




seen in the past. We feel this way despite the restrictions the ADU has put on renting--people have away of skirting those restrictions especially when we do not see an adequate oversight by the city toenforce them. So that is my feeling at this point and I sense that many neighbors agree with me

Esther Hunter inside Salt Lake City October 26, 2010, 8:24 PM

I believe there is a justified need for the ability to legalize accessory dwelling units in the City. This can be useful and helpful to many. I support the owner occupied requirement. Having said that, I also believe that this ordinance is not yet ready for prime time. This is a significant change.

While we need to step forward, a blanket approach rather than a carefully planned, appropriatelyapplied approach will further exacerbate many city issues and problems such as our failing andunderfunded infrastructure especially evident in many older neighborhoods. The benefit of not being first is that we can learn from and avoid the long term problems this type ofchange has created in other cities. This ordinance needs to be built on a firm foundation. The foundation should come first.

In Salt Lake the very zones/properties that could best absorb additional density due to their size andstature will not likely be utilized in this manner but instead it will be the older already more dense,smaller lots that will be further compromised. This is not socially responsible.

This type of significant change should be carefully trialed, have a great deal more thought out criteria(ie design guidelines), correlation with other ordinances (ie the duplex legalization process), and havemore details developed that give specific criteria for approval. Is it near transit, what does the master plan say, how much density already exists, how much parkingis available, is there a lit street lamp, impact to property values, what is the crime rate,roads/water/sewer impacts to name but a few. What exactly tips the balance into the negative for a particular block face, a neighborhood?

Instead, we could begin by having the ordinance trialed through a one off review process such asconditional use or Board of Adjustments rather than implemented in a blanket fashion. Maybe wherethe least negative impact is likely but where a thoughtfully assessed minimum criteria has been met(ie new Sugar House streetcar line). While the manpower to prepare a case for review is staggering, the ability of the City tomanage/enforce/police this ordinance city wide as written is not likely feasible at all.

If a more restricted/one off trial run proves successful, this gate can always be widened.

As Dr. Chris Nelson (UU FAICP Presidential Professor City and Metropolitan Planning) has stated, ALL of the Cities anticipated growth could be absorbed by utilizing the many existing flat surfaceparking lots which also coincides with one of the goals of the Downtown Community Council.

Page 11 of 15




Incentives for this type of development would meet the need for additional tax base, density/growthwhile at the same time enriching the City without disrupting existing neighborhoods.

I sincerely hope the administration will take the additional time to develop this into a win-win approachthat does not harm some areas while protecting others. This is doable.

quinn mccallum-law inside Salt Lake City October 25, 2010, 6:26 PM

I think this plan has great potential to both preserve existing buildings and create new housingopportunities. I currently live in an owner occupied legal triplex and it works well for my wife and I but Ithink we could take it further as a city. What about "ABU's" or accessory business units as well onowner occupied properties? I am aware of home-occupation permits but within many area's of thecity this could contribute to the liveliness of up and coming areas as well as create places for peopleto actually walk to, something that is still lacking in SLC albeit growing. I see so many of thesebuildings around the city going to waste because the current owners see no value in commercialspace, yet, seemingly, are disinterested in selling them (I've found 1 for sale publicly in the last fiveyears.) So letting others build businesses as well would be as or more beneficial than the ADU's. Iam still all for the ADU ordinance in the interim.

Kelly Stevens inside Salt Lake City October 25, 2010, 9:37 AM

I am a 15 year resident of the Avenues. I have owned two owner-occupied duplexes and have beenworking with the city to legalize a triplex that was non-conforming. I am absolutely opposed to ADU's.Residents of the Avenues have protected this neighborhood for decades, working hard to make it asafe, live-able community. When rampant development of apartment complexes and creation of non-conforming apartments was the norm for the Avenues, it was a dangerous, drug-ridden neighborhoodon the decline. With the hard work of many citizens, regulations have made it difficult to addapartments and break up single-family dwellings. This trend has protected our neighborhood andcreated a GREAT place to live. The avenues can be seen as an at-risk neighborhood in SLC. Crimeis relatively high within our boundaries. With more apartments and a more transient population, thescale could be tipped. Parking is another complicated issue with negative implications from allowingADU's especially with an allowance for 'limited' exemptions. The requirement for an owner-occupiedhouse seems very tenuous and difficult to regulate down-the-line.

Stephanie Churchill Jackel outside Salt Lake City October 23, 2010, 1:32 PM

I'm concerned that the "fact sheet" and the draft ordinance don't agree as to the size of ADU allowed.The fact sheet says 50% of sq. ftg. of primary structure or 650 sq.ft., whichever is GREATER, whilethe ordinance says 50% or 650 sq.ft., whichever is LESS. This is a serious discrepancy. I also thinkstrict design guidelines should apply wherever the ADU is located, historic district or not.

Dana Schaffer inside Salt Lake City October 16, 2010, 4:51 PM

I'm an Avenues Homeowner. This is a city and neighborhoods closest to the city should becomemore dense. Also, I agree with this proposal because it is environmentally friendly to increase densitywithin the city and limit sprawl. The more the merrier. I think this will allow our neighborhood to bediverse and it will keep it so that people providing services within the community and others like

Page 12 of 15




teachers, can afford to live in the neighborhood in which they are contributors. Since we areexperiencing severe property tax increases, I imagine this move may allow many people (e.g. fixedincomes) who are a valuable part of the neighborhood to keep their homes. Also, if our neighborhoodbecomes more dense, we might actually be able to support some more small businesses. I for onewould like a few more restaurant options within walking distance and perhaps a store other thanSmith's. Someone brought up parking. I'm not really worried about that, having lived in SanFrancisco and Seattle. The more dense it becomes, the more people will take public transit andhopefully those people won't need cars at all, if there are businesses within walking distance andtransit to the U and downtown. I do hope they will consider adding traffic lights and enforce the speedlimit so that we can be pedestrian friendly, even if we increase density. However, even recent requestsfor those services/changes have fallen on deaf ears.

Jon Parrish inside Salt Lake City October 8, 2010, 12:41 PM

Highly in favor of ADU. What a great way to stimulate economy, provide low cost housing to gradstudents, young couples, and young families; not to mention bringing extra taxes in which will keep mytaxes lower! Let's ask the business owner who just shut down due to the lack of business, the schoolteacher who just got laid off due to the lack of students, or the student who just took the semester offto pay for the gas it takes to drive from out of town if they are in favor of infill. I vote yes.

linda burr outside Salt Lake City October 6, 2010, 8:16 AM

As a former Avenues resident for over twenty years, I think having Accessory Dwellings are not goingto detract from the neighborhood. There are many already being used. I know the area had a badperiod where many Victorians were split up as apartments, but now that many are single familydwellings again, a small cottage for students or for working singles/couple residences would be greatinfill. Of course there would be zoning still in place for fire safety, noise, parking, etc. We have thecountries' worst air pollution partly because people drive to get downtown for work and school. I'msure many would like to have a closer, quiet, residential, more affordable place to live.

Hilary Verson inside Salt Lake City October 1, 2010, 5:12 PM

I support ADU. As long as these rentals are on owner-occupied property, they will be well-maintained.ADU's will increase the population density & increase property tax without causing duress.Additionally, I suggest a small annual rental unit tax for apartment dwellers to help maintaininfrastructure and services, perhaps $25/year. I think this would provide about $750,000/year withoutraising residential property tax.

Jim Ferguson inside Salt Lake City October 1, 2010, 3:54 PM

This is a terrible idea. It will turn back years of work making the Avenues one of the nicest places inthe city to live. We have all worked for years to get rid of Accessory Dwelling Units. There is norational reason, other than greed, to bring back the blight.

James Ferguson.

Pax Rasmussen inside Salt Lake City September 24, 2010, 11:58 PM

Page 13 of 15




I strongly support this ordinance. I keep hearing about the 'inevitability' of growth in the valley, and itmakes me sick. There really is only so much space, not to mention water. And the more we sprawl,the worse the already terrible air gets. Instead of dinking around with ideas like the northwestquadrant, we should focus on INFILL. I find the comment referring to Tokyo offensive: To thatcommenter, I ask, "Would you prefer Tokyo or L.A.?" Because L.A. is the direction we're headed. Ifyou don't like density, move to the country. Up to a point, the denser the city, the better—the citybecomes more walkable, more supportive of independent, locally-owned business, and morecommunity-oriented. Hurrah for the ADU!

Mike Kephart outside Salt Lake City September 22, 2010, 7:25 AM

Here in the city of Denver we included ADUs in our new zoning ordinance adopted recently. I wouldsuggest letting the maximum size of an ADU increase with the size of the lot. We included thisprovision in our code. I would also suggest that you ask families to tell their stories rather than tryingto appeal to the populace with logic and reason. This is a change and people generally fear changeunless they can personalize it. We failed in this respect and it became a divisive issue when it couldhave been seen as good for families.

bruce beck inside Salt Lake City September 20, 2010, 7:51 AM

I agree with Alysa K

Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City September 15, 2010, 9:08 PM

If this can be accomplished without creating mega houses or mega barns then go for it along with thefollowing: I believe a ratio between property size and house foot print needs to be established. Thereshould also be a limit on number of people based on family relation and total number per square foot.

Kathryn Fitzgerald inside Salt Lake City September 10, 2010, 4:25 PM

I am concerned about the parking consequences of this ordinance in the University area, especiallynear the blocks zoned for Greeks. The Greek houses are already allowed virtually unlimited parkingpermits while single family homes are limited to three permits. This should not be a blanket citywideordinance. It must examine the differences among neighborhoods and differing consequences of thechange.

Philip Carlson inside Salt Lake City September 2, 2010, 3:58 PM

I hope this moves along!

We need more residents in the City. This will not likely increase density dramatically, but even a slightincrease will be good for our community.

The owner occupation requirement is an important part of the proposal. Really, I would hope that fewhouses are divided, but that accessory units would be detached keeping the main house intact forlarger families. Units above garages or even separate buildings would be best.

Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City September 1, 2010, 8:39 PM

Page 14 of 15




I am opposed to this proposed ordinance as it will increase population density in already crowdedareas. We are already suffering from crime, congestion, transportation problems, lack of privacy andother intrusions to a calm and peaceful life. Is Tokyo really the city we want to morph into?

Alyssa Kay inside Salt Lake City September 1, 2010, 6:30 PM

This is a positive move for Salt Lake City. Accessory Dwelling Units will allow extended families to livecloser together, provide rental income and increase the city's density (without significant impact oncharacter) to mitigate urban sprawl. I am in favor of this ordinance.

Some of the specifics of the ordinance, however, are unnecessarily restrictive such as the Owner-Occupied Property requirement. There are many renters who would benefit from this kind of livingarrangement. This section seems to be prejudiced against renters.

Section 7.b.(1) is unclear. If the accessory unit is detached how/why would an existing entrance beused? Why would a new entrance be required to face away from the street? In my opinion that wouldcreate a mass that would be unattractive from the streetscape.

Overall, this is a good start. Thanks!

Page 15 of 15




1

Maloy, Michael

From: Tarbet, NickSent: Friday, June 10, 2011 10:34 AMTo: Maloy, MichaelCc: Coffey, Cheri; Jardine, Janice; City Council LiaisonsSubject: Comments regarding ADU Proposal--D5

Categories: Other

Hi Michael‐ Council Member Love received the following comment regarding the ADU proposal. The citizen mentioned he has commented on Open City Hall, but I just wanted to make sure you received them. Thanks‐

From: Gary Harding [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 5:35 PM To: '[email protected]'

Subject: ADU Proposal

I just submitted comments on Open City Hall and then an email request of the City Council to oppose the ADU proposal. In the latter I asked the Council not to vote for any proposal lacking specific on 5 points. Would you please ask the appropriate City people to either include the following in the ADU proposal or explain to you why they cannot do so?

Code that unambiguously defines the following:

A mechanism stronger than a business license (perhaps something tied to property tax payment process) to assure that owners certify that they remain compliant with the ADU requirements each year or that they officially forfeit the ADU designation on the property.

Gary C Harding

[email protected]

(c) 801 870 8410

Nick Tarbet Salt Lake City Council Office Policy Analyst / Constituent Liaison (801) 535-7603 [email protected] To assure proper attention to your email, please 'Reply to All' or include [email protected] on the address line of this email. If you would like to receive email updates about important City events and issues from your Council Member please reply to this email and say “yes.”or scan the QR Code with your phone.

1

Maloy, Michael

From: Sean Clark [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 2:14 PMTo: Maloy, MichaelSubject: ADU?

Categories: Other

Hi Michael, I spoke with Mikaela yesterday and she said that i would not be allowed to put a bathroom in my Carriage house. I was just reading up on the proposal regarding allowing ADU's by Mayor Becker, and I am in favor of allowing them with no restrictions. Beyond that, I was hoping to get some calrification if my plan to put a bathroom with a place to wash my hands, maybe even shower after working in the yard etc. qualifies as an ADU. It is not my intention to create a stand alone living space. It is not my intention to rent space to anyone, though I have plenty of space in the main house as it is just me, my wife, and our son in a 5500 sq ft home. Seems silly to restrict my ability to make a bathroom based on legislation aimed to deter high population density and renting rooms..... Is it your understanding that the restrictions on ADU's would proclude me from having running water in the garage? Also, there appears to be a drain pipe in the Carriage House, and according to our research, quarters were used in the Carriage House for laundry early in the century....so our theory is that it is still connected to the sewer system. Not sure if that would also affect how the current condition is defined or if the presence of a sewer drain allows me to restore running water to the building. Thanks for your guidance, appreciate your efforts to allow ADU's as the right of a property owner. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help in getting the legislation passed. Thanks again, Sean Clark 801‐599‐9065

To Members of the Planning Commission From Cindy Cromer Re ADU's March 23, 2011 I have had plenty of experience with the Administration's proposal for ADU's: First as a member of the ZAP Committee almost 2 years ago, then as a participant in the ADU Task Force last summer, and on numerous occasions since then in various community meetings. You received a copy of the memo I wrote for the Task Force meeting at your December discussion and it is included in the materials in the packet for tonight's hearing. The theme of that memo is that the City's lacks the skills to make the proposal as drafted by Clarion a success. Clarion's proposal does not consider the uniqueness and diversity of Salt Lake City's neighborhoods. I want to make a few points tonight in the two minutes allowed. 1. As a community, we do not need another divisive issue. Parley's Historic Nature Park and Yalecrest were enough to last us for a long time. The proposal as drafted by Clarion has armor that is almost impenetrable. Despite my constructive and critical comments for almost two years, the proposal has changed very little. I implore you to make recommendations to the City Council which will move the proposal to a place where it can be supported by more people, and vigorously opposed by few. 2. What would such a proposal look like? What would I be willing to support? I could support a proposal that allowed ADU's in the RMF-30 and RMF-35 zones in single-family dwellings regardless of lot size and which were also within 4 blocks of fixed transit. There are lots of reasons to emphasize those criteria for ADU's, including the fact that all residents and business owners in those parts of the City expect to have tenants as neighbors. 3. It has become clear to me that the people ultimately responsible for this decision have little understanding of the complex relationship between current market forces, enforcement, unit legalization, the Good Landlord Program, business licensing, housing inspections, and the building code. Please ask for a briefing that would clarify the relationships between these influences before you proceed. By staff estimate, there are still 1000 units in the unit legalization process. The map in front of you shows the number of nonconforming properties with 3 and 4 units within the single-family zoning district of East Liberty alone. There is already far more density in the City's older neighborhoods than the Administration has acknowledged. All of my own properties are nonconforming with respect to density except my personal residence. I would not have invested in them without the additional units. 4. The compatible infill ordinance isn't working well but it does not apply to the RMF zones AT ALL. There is no compatibility process for ADU's in the RMF zones outside an historic district. 5. The first person to bring up the issue of accessiblity was one of the housing advocates at a Task Force meeting. Now the Mayor's Advisory Council has suggested some incentives for accessible ADU's. While the TRAX may be accessible, most of the housing around it is not. The City should certainly provide substantial incentives to increase this type of housing. It is more expensive to construct. 6. The Administration has misrepresented ADU's as "affordable." They may cost less per square foot because of the absence of additional land costs, but ADU's are market-rate housing. The use of the word "affordable" is inappropriate and misleading.

March 20, 2011 Mayor Ralph Becker Salt Lake City Council Salt Lake Planning Department Members of the Salt Lake City Planning Department, During the late 1990s, in response to changing national demographics, changing economics and changing community goals, AARP engaged in national research analyzing fifty local accessory dwelling unit ordinances. The organization then drafted the Model State Accessory Dwelling Unit Act and the Model Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance.* In the forward to this publication, the following conclusion was reached:

"Reductions in the size of American households, along with changes in their composition and economic circumstances, warrant consideration of zoning policies that encourage the more efficient use of the nation's infrastructure and supply of single-family homes to meet current and future housing needs. States and localities are also seeking ways to assure the independence and security of older residents with a minimum of public investment. ADUs provide a potential resource for addressing these issues by making more effective use of existing housing stock and providing older homeowners with a potential source of income to maintain their independence."

In the document's Introduction, it is pointed out that, the American family is, "... growing in number but shrinking in size...In some communities, the need for housing, especially for people with special physical and financial needs, has become acute. Underused space in single-family houses in one of the nation's largest untapped housing resources." The document goes on to suggest that, "As the population ages, many older people find themselves living in their family homes alone. They may need additional income to pay for health care services, cover home maintenance costs, or make mortgage payments. Others may want a family member or a caretaker to live nearby, while maintaining privacy for both parties." The document's Introduction further observes that across the United States, local communities, "...have recognized the need to stabilize or increase population densities in certain areas in order to maintain the existing public infrastructure, services, and tax base. In addition, many communities have sought to concentrate population density in specific areas in order to encourage public transit service and reduce urban sprawl. These communities do not, however, necessarily want their single-family neighborhoods to become structurally more dense." The Introduction goes on to point out that accessory dwelling units offer, "...the potential for assisting older homeowners and other in maintaining their independence while increasing the supply of affordable rental housing within a community." It further states that, "Income from an ADU can offset rising property taxes, maintenance and repair costs, and other housing expenses that are often a burden for older homeowners. ADUs can also make it easier for households with children to afford the housing they need. In some situations, an ADU may provide enough additional income so that a family can afford to buy a house in a preferred neighborhood that is safer, has better schools, or is closer to work."

As the document observes, it should come as no surprise that what is now called an accessory dwelling unit is nothing new. Before World War II, it was a very common living arrangement in our nation's cities, including Salt Lake City. Difficult economic times during the Great Depression made it necessary for families to find affordable housing and for widows and single seniors to supplement their incomes by taking in roomers and boarders who could not afford their own homes. But the post-war housing and economic boom, and subsequent development of sprawling suburbs, essentially put an end to this common practice. As a result, most cities wrote their zoning ordinance to not allow ADUs. However, the post war building boom has now come to an end, and with our current economic reality, which some are calling our new reality, families are once again forced into seeking affordable housing. The AARP document quoted above is over ten years old, and written well before the current economic crisis that has put millions of Americans out of work, and in the most extreme cases, has caused them to become homeless. Moreover, scientific research on the environment has made it clear that we cannot resume building far-flung suburbs at the neglect of our urban neighborhoods. So the nationwide pendulum of allowing accessory dwelling units in city neighborhoods has now swung in the other direction, and it is high time for Salt Lake City to follow suit. I fully support Mayor Ralph Becker, the Salt Lake City Council, and the Salt Lake City Planning Department in their efforts, with the retained professional help of Clarion Associates, to implement the Sustainable City Code Initiative, which provides changes in our city zoning ordinance to allow, among many other sustainable and reasonable measures, accessory dwelling units in our city. Respectfully, Erin R Silva Architect Erin R Silva, RA Architect Erin R Silva & Associates 115 South 1100 East, #505 Salt Lake City, UT 84102 801-557-3400 [email protected] Adjunct Faculty, College of Architecture + Planning Leap Faculty, College of Undergraduate Studies University of Utah [email protected]

* AARP, Accessory Dwelling Units, Model State Act and Local Ordinance, A Publication of the Public Policy Institute, American Planning Association, by Rodney L. Cobb and Scott Dvorak, American Planning Association, ©2000, AARP

February 23, 2011

Utah Department of Agriculture and Food supports ADUs and Salt Lake City’s Sustainable Code

The Utah Department of Agriculture and Food would like to offer its support for the creation of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in Salt Lake City. With regards to our Utah agricultural food production system, our consumers, and our environment, we view ADUs as a tool that can help benefit these interests.

• We support the concept that by adding ADUs to a city’s dwelling mix there will be reduced demand to develop suburban farmland into residential subdivisions.

• We support the concept that housing units located closer to employment centers will increase participation in public transportation and decrease automobile traffic on our interstate freeways and arterial highways.

• We support the concept that during this economic downturn, families may need to reside closer together, and ADUs can meet these families’ needs.

With regard to the City’s Sustainable City Code Initiative;

• We fully support code provisions that enable citizens to grow, consume and even sell raw produce from their private or community gardens provided that reasonable qualifying provisions are offered to protect the health of neighbors and children.

• We encourage EVERY Utahn to embrace agriculture and become more aware of the food system and the role our 16,000 farmers and ranchers play in their lives.

• The energy savings associated with backyard or community gardens can be significant. • We support organized educational efforts that disseminate growing and harvesting techniques that

protect food supply and safety interests. A moment to reflect on the historical importance of agriculture. This July 24th will be the 164th anniversary of our pioneer forefathers’ entrance into the Salt Lake valley. Even before Brigham Young uttered his famous statement, “This is the Place” the pioneers were already digging up the soil and planting crops just one block north of Salt Lake City Hall. Agriculture came first for them. We would like to work with you to make agriculture first AGAIN for our citizens and leaders. Sincerely, Leonard M. Blackham, Commissioner Utah Department of Agriculture and Food

1

Maloy, Michael

From: [email protected]: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:15 AMTo: Maloy, MichaelCc: [email protected]: ADUs

Categories: Other

Mr. Maloy: Thanks for your explication. I have been interested in ADUs as a newly single person who can't =20 afford her mortgage without assistance. While a certain kind of =20 supplementary support may be possible for a short period, in the =20 long‐term, if I want to keep my home, creating a studio apartment in =20 my home's second story would be a good way to offset my financial =20 burden, especially as I am so close to retirement. I believe allowing ADUs only if the property owner also lives on the =20 premises makes good sense ‐‐ better, certainly, than being forced to =20 sell in a down market and move to a less‐desirable location. I am =20 quite fond of where I live, like my neighbors and would like to stay. Sincerely, Patty Henetz

1

Maloy, Michael

From: Sommerkorn, WilfordSent: Monday, January 31, 2011 4:20 PMTo: Maloy, MichaelSubject: FW: accessory dwelling units

Categories: Other

Wilf Sommerkorn Director Salt Lake City Planning Division

From: Gale, Amy Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 3:22 PM To: Sommerkorn, Wilford Cc: Langan, Helen; Mayor Subject: FW: accessory dwelling units

FYI for you guys.

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 9:20 AM To: Mayor Subject: accessory dwelling units

Mayor Becker, I would like to wholeheartedly support your plan to allow accessory dwelling units, when appropriate, in residential neighborhoods. I have lived in a number of cites where these units enhance the life of the community; New Orleans, Tucson, Santa Cruz. Last night I attended a neighborhood council meeting of Elpco, of which I am past chair. Michael Kohn, the current chair conducted a session in which he made it clear that he opposes the plan and took vote which came out as opposed. Michael will present his findings at the Mayor's breakfast next week. I have done straw poll of residents on my block (Ninth East between Belmont and Yale) and find that all of the resident property owners are in favor

2

of the amendment. This vote is not representative of the residents of the area. Only those who shared his views were invited, with the exception of myself and two others. I felt that the presentation was biased and based on other personal motives (such as a depressed rental market) Dan Bethel, an acquaintance of yours, and I have discussed this issue at some length and would like to lend our support to it. Most of the objections being raised are smoke screens for something else. Keep up the good work Randolph Holladay 1014 South 900 East 84105 801 322-0832 [email protected]

1

Maloy, Michael

From: Judi Short [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 3:29 PMTo: Maloy, MichaelSubject: Re: ADU's

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Categories: Other

And I think it is on the HAAB board as well coming up. without a draft of whatever you are working on, it is hard to get input. I have several concerns - one is that to apply it city-wide without a trial period could create problems, I know the Avenues folks are pretty clear they don't want it in their area, because they have spent a lot of time cleaning up illegal units to the point that the area is more livable. The second is that the ordinance does not have a lot of specifics in it, and can be interpreted to create a lot of problems. Are you going to the East Liberty Community Council meeting on Thursday? They have a lot of concerns and good examples. Most of Sugar House might be ok with it, but my Emerson neighborhood wouldn't work except maybe on two or three lots, lots are too small. When might you have the next draft?

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Maloy, Michael <[email protected]> wrote:

Judi:

You are correct, we did brief the Planning Commission on the draft ADU ordinance on November 15, and thought we would have had the official public hearing by now. But following the briefing and another round of internal discussions, we thought the ADU ordinance needed more work before proceeding. Right now, we are working on the next draft with the idea that it may be ready for a Planning Commission public hearing in March or April. Also for your information, HLC has expressed interest in being briefed on the ordinance, which will probably happen on March 2nd.

Sincerely,

Michael Maloy, AICP

Principal Planner

Salt Lake City Corp

PO Box 145480

451 S State Street Rm 406

Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5480


Attachment J Community Council Comments

606 Trolley Square Salt Lake City, Utah 84102

[email protected] Page | 1

March 17, 2011 Michael Maloy, AICP Principal Planner Salt Lake City Corporation Salt Lake City Planning Commission c/o Angela Hasenberg, Senior Secretary Salt Lake City Corporation [email protected] Regarding: PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling Units Dear Planning Commissioners; Gary and I have been asked to write to you in behalf of the general membership and the Executive Board of the Eastside Community Council & East Central Planning District (formerly called East Central) to consider our recommendations for a successful pilot of the ADU policy. Our area represents from South Temple to 1700 South, 1365 East to 700 East or 9 neighborhoods, 3 business districts. First a thank you and also a plea for your ongoing support. Our community council area is not opposed to change or to growth. We have educated ourselves to clearly understand the many changes that need to take place to ready for the growth and housing options anticipated by 2040. On the other hand, this area is also uniquely fragile. It’s location within walking distance to downtown, the University of Utah, Westminster and Sugar House, with transit intersecting the area and charming business districts such as Ninth and Ninth and the proposed Canal District makes it highly desirable. For the same reasons it is also at risk. It is a rich fabric with an extensive history and undisputed character (example please see the This Old House article included with this letter). A neighborhood where on the same block you see a 5 story apartment buildings, a group home, a medical clinic, duplexes, single family homes, neighborhood businesses such as a coffee shop and a yoga studio. In other words, we have organically grown the very sustainable and walkable community that

the City hopes to encourage throughout Salt Lake.

mailto:[email protected]



A thoughtful approach to land use policy that takes into account our fully developed neighborhood can never be done in a broad paint brush manner or we end up loossing what we all cherish with unintended consequences. We believe detailed planning as well as extensive community vetting/buy in ensures that good growth can be realized. We do not simply fight for single family homes but instead for the full fabric of our council area. So next we would like to add our applause to the administsration for taking the added time to develop this particular land use policy. To date, we feel that the community involvement and the time invested to create a tailored ADU policy for Salt Lake City has been handled with good communication and care. We hope this continues. Last, we understand that this pilot may be restricted to areas with fixed transit such as

ours.

We believe better would be a pilot spread across the different areas of the City and the different zones which would give better data for when later the City opens this policy to all areas; would give equal access to this new and lucrative property right and instead of negatively “packing” our less affluent areas of the city, provide this option to areas with larger lots better able to absorb the impacts. However, long familiar with multiple units and mulitple uses in our area, in concept, the membership and the ECPD Executive Board are highly interested in andy fully supportive of the “idea” of ADU’s. The following are what we believe we will need for a successful and supported pilot

should you propose it be in our area.

Please consider:

1. The owner occupied requirement be upheld.

2. These units be counted when calculating density.

3. The first time a unit is approved it include an on site inspection for both building

and health/life/safety. (Could be administered through a third party.)



4. The program be fully self funding including all necessary enforcement. We encourage this same thought for the business licensing of existing units down to 2 units.

5. Design standards include the requirement to maintain the green, open space

characteristics of the neighborhood in front, side and backyards rather than the wholesale tearing up of property frontage, side yards and back yards to install parking lots, parking pads, and asphalt instead of a yard. We ask that standards be included to protect this point.

6. We would need a targeted education/enforcement effort in this area. We have a disproportionately high amount of exisitng illegal duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, etc. that are causing both the City and neighborhood extensive impact/cost/deterioration.

7. Eliminate the special exception unit legalization process currently in place that bypasses the standards put in place in each zone and the master plan. Put in place as a 1-2 year temporary measure to protect property rights in 95 is being used to bypass the system now 16 years later. It more than any other program has caused significant problems in the area and between neighbors. Also, costs to City to administer this program are very high in staff and board time.

8. Implementation of the Good Landlord Program. Thank you for considering our thoughts and recommendations. In behalf of the Executive Board and General Membership Gary Felt Esther Hunter Co-Chairs East Central Planning District cc ECPD Executive Board

Luke Garrott

Jill Love

Wilf Sommerkorn



http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/photos/0,,20466527_20917999,00.html

Ten Best Old House Neighborhoods 2011: The West and Northwest

By: Keith Pandolfi, Gillian Barth, Carole Braden, Amanda Keiser, Eric Hagerman, Sal Vaglica, and Danielle Blundell, This Old House online

For the fourth year in a row, we've tracked down North America's most timeless neighborhoods—places where lovingly crafted old houses have extraordinary pasts and unarguably promising futures. With help from our friends at Portland, Oregon-based PreservationDirectory.com—who distributed our nomination forms to more than 14,000 historical societies, neighborhood groups, and preservation nonprofits—we've assembled our biggest-ever list of off-the-beaten-path places that are worth eyeing for a great old home. From quaint New England villages to bustling urban enclaves, here are a dozen places where you can find a perfect old house of your own along the northern Atlantic coast.

Here are our picks for the perfect spots to buy a home in the land west of the Rockies.


http://www.preservationdirectory.com/HistoricalPreservation/Home.aspx



University District, Salt Lake City, Utah

< > Photo: Courtesy of Alison Flanders

Young families live alongside professors and college students in this Salt Lake City neighborhood between downtown and the University of Utah campus. Think of the University District as a perfect college town, where residential streets divided by grassy medians are within walking distance of locally owned pizza parlors and coffee shops; and where a sea of residents, donning their finest red and white, migrate to nearby Rice-Eccles stadium on autumnal Saturdays to watch their beloved Utes play football. "People love this neighborhood," says Realtor Celeste Council, whose clients are drawn to its progressive vibe and the close-set houses, which she says adds to the University District's sense of community. The neighborhood had a scare in the 1970s when developers started knocking down historic houses to make way for apartments and commercial buildings. But residents fought back, secured new zoning laws, and got a large chunk of the neighborhood listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Houses Most are brick or clapboard Folk Victorians built for University of Utah professors and employees between 1900 and 1920. Other styles include Gothic Revival, Queen Anne,





Tudor, and Craftsman. You can get a modest two-bedroom Folk Victorian for less than $200,000, though larger homes are priced $500,000 and up. Why Buy Here? Preservation-minded buyers are purchasing and renovating an increasing number of the old houses here, ensuring that this historic neighborhood retains its classic architecture and character. Many smaller, low-carbon-footprint houses are also bringing eco-savvy buyers, who install solar panels, swap thirsty lawns for xeriscaping, and use rain barrels to collect water for gardens. University District residents are also eschewing cars, relying on bicycles and Salt Lake City's light-rail system to get to and from downtown.

Gallery: Best Old House Neighborhoods 2011:

http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/photos/0,,20468934,00.html

EAST LIBERTY PARK COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION PO Box 520123 Salt Lake City, UT 84125

March 21, 2011

Ms. Jill Remington Love Salt Lake City Council Chair and District 5 Council Member 451 South State Street, Room 304 Salt Lake City, UT 84114

Dear Ms. Love,

The East Liberty Park Community Organization (ELPCO) met Thursday evening, January 27, 2011 to discuss the proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit portion of Mayor Becker’s Sustainability Initiative. At the conclusion of the discussion, the members present voted overwhelmingly against

adopting the Accessory Dwelling Unit portion of the Mayor’s Sustainability ordinance. The vote was against ADU’s being allowed in East Liberty Park.

Specifically cited as concerns were (in no particular order):

1. Ultimately, ADU’s will negatively affect the essential character of the East Liberty Park area. Several residents said they moved here for the “feel” of East Liberty Park.

2. There are already too many renters in this area anyway, and renters continue to display an “I don’t care” attitude about the neighborhood.

3. The potential created for overcrowded and canyon-like alleys. The current condition and maintenance of the alleys was a related concern.

4. Concerns about parking, traffic, and the large number of already boarded up alley garages where the occupants/owners are parking on the street.

5. The failure in the past of the City to properly and thoroughly enforce current ordinances related to planning and housing issues.

6. The general vagueness of the actual ordinance and the lack of information about enforcement and administrative costs that might be associated with enforcement.

7. General concerns about the ability of the existing infrastructure to properly handle additional density.

8. Questioned whether the proposed ordinance would reduce driving and reliance on automobiles within East Liberty Park.

As co-chairperson of ELPCO, and as a result of the vote taken Thursday, January 27, 2011, I advise you that as a neighborhood, the East Liberty Park Community Organization is against Accessory Dwelling Units in any form within East Liberty Park.

Sincerely,

Michael A. Cohn, Co-Chairperson East Liberty Park Community Organization (ELPCO) PO Box 520123 Salt Lake City, UT 84125 [email protected]

801.521.9450 phone 801.770.2040 fax macohn9 skype

Cc Honorable Ralph Becker, Mayor, Salt Lake City, UT

Mr. David Everitt, Chief of Staff, Mayor’s Office, Salt Lake City, UT

Planning Department, Salt Lake City, UT

Salt Lake Community Network & Community Council Chairs

Ms. Marielle Siraa, Co-Chairperson, East Liberty Park Community Organization


Attachment K Department Comments

Engineering Department Comments

1

Maloy, Michael

From: Spangenberg, CraigSent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 11:29 AMTo: Maloy, MichaelCc: Isbell, RandySubject: ADU's

Categories: Other

Michael: As per your request, the following addresses concerns from an enforcement standpoint: E.2.a. Owner‐occupied property required. Accessory dwelling units shall only be permitted when the property owner lives on the property within either the principal dwelling or accessory dwelling unit. During our normal enforcement activities, we sometimes find it necessary to confirm who actually resides at a particular dwelling. Many times, this can prove to be difficult. No matter how many utility bills or ownership records are provided showing the mailing address of the property owner, we have no proof that the individual actually resides at that location. The net result can be frustrated neighbors who say that the City will not enforce their ordinances, when in actuality we have no proof that what the neighbors allege is accurate regarding the occupancy of the property. In order to provide effective enforcement, the draft ordinance should contain specific, verifiable criteria to be used in order to meet the owner occupied requirements. If the requirements are met, the property is considered to be owner occupied. If the criteria cannot be met, the property is not considered to be owner occupied and will not be eligible as an accessory dwelling unit.

1

Maloy, Michael

From: Walsh, BarrySent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 12:28 PMTo: Maloy, MichaelCc: Young, Kevin; Weiler, Scott; Itchon, Edward; Garcia, Peggy; Butcher, LarrySubject: PLNPCM2010- 00612 ADU

Categories: Other

March 10, 2011 Michael Maloy, Planning Re: Petition PLNPCM2010‐00612 to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Code to allow Accessory Dwelling Units within single‐family and multi‐family residential districts. The division of transportation review comments and recommendations are for approval as follows: The Accessory Dwelling Units code suggest that this is not duplexes or apartments, but living units within a owner occupied controlled residence. Where parking is in compliance and the accessory unit will requiring one parking stall per ADU. As written, the parking would be required but the transportation division could modify the requirements (such as allow tandem parking or no parking) where certain factors are evident (such as where there is available on‐street parking, parking is within 1/4 mile of a trax station, the unit is within walking distance to a business district areas , etc. and home occupations are limited to no visitors or parking generators etc.) Sincerely, Barry Walsh Cc Kevin Young, P.E. Scott Weiler, P.E. Ted Itchon, Fire Peggy Garcia, Public Utilities Larry Butcher, Permits File

1

Maloy, Michael

From: Ross, MichelleSent: Monday, March 14, 2011 10:41 AMTo: Maloy, MichaelSubject: PLNPCM2010-00612

Categories: Other

Michael, The PD has no issues. Thanks, Sgt. Michelle Ross

1

Maloy, Michael

From: Stoker, JustinSent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 12:48 PMTo: Maloy, MichaelSubject: FW: Accessory Dwelling Unit - Request for Comment

Importance: High

Categories: Other

From: Vetter, Rusty Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 4:39 PM To: Stoker, Justin Cc: Garcia, Peggy; Stewart, Brad Subject: RE: Accessory Dwelling Unit - Request for Comment

I talked to Michael and Paul Nielson about this. They are very happy to work with us and asked for proposed language from us. Michael just said he needs it by Wednesday morning. There is a provision in the proposed ordinance that a deed restriction be placed on the property to indicate that there is an owner‐occupied requirement on the property. We could add in a provision also alerting people of the existence of a connection of sewer or water service through the primary residence. Here is some proposed language highlighted in yellow: b. Deed Restriction. A lot approved for development with an accessory dwelling unit must have a deed restriction filed with the county recorder’s office indicating such owner‐occupied requirement of the property prior to issuance of a final certificated occupancy for the accessory dwelling unity by the city. If sewer or water utility service will be connected through the primary residence and not connected through a separate connection to the sewer or water main, the deed restriction will also identify any sewer or water connections into or through the primary residence. Such deed restriction shall run with the land until the accessory dwelling unity is abandoned. Let me know if this works for you or what changes are needed and I’ll send it to Michael.

1

Maloy, Michael

From: Nielson, PaulSent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 4:37 PMTo: Maloy, MichaelSubject: Accessory Dwelling Units draft ordinance

Categories: Other

Michael: I have some brief comments regarding the draft accessory dwelling units ordinance.

Definition of “owner occupant” at paragraph 2(a)(2): how do we determine what the purpose was for creating a family trust? This is a rhetorical question as it can be safely assumed that all family trusts were done as part of estate planning, but the language of the draft makes it seem like this needs to be verified. Just my two cents on that.

E(2)(e) (Standards: General Requirements: Multi‐Family Districts with Single Family Dwelling on Lot): what does “built out” mean. I have my guesses, but I shouldn’t have to guess.

E(4): I assume that the size of an ADU is still restricted even if it is within the principal dwelling.

E(7)(a): last sentence re: adding entrances to principal dwelling front façade is confusing and probably contradictory. How can a new entrance be located on the front façade of a principal dwelling only if it is located at least 20 feet behind the front façade?

E(9): requiring a business license for an accessory dwelling unit may not work with SLC Code sec. 5.14.020, which only requires business licenses for 3+ units. The attorney in my office for Business Licensing commented that this could present a significant increase in administrative efforts as all one (and possibly two‐) unit apartments associated with a principal, single‐family dwelling could require hiring of additional personnel to manage. The question also arose as to whether business licensing was the best choice to process applications for these.

In light of the prior comment, comments should be sought from Jamie Allred in Business Licensing on the proposed ordinance.

Paul C. Nielson Senior City Attorney 801.535.7216 IMPORTANT: E-mail from the City Attorney's Office is likely to contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. The use, distribution, transmittal or re-transmittal of any such communication is prohibited without the express approval of the City Attorney or a Deputy City Attorney in writing or by e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

Butcher, Larry

To: Maloy, Michael Subject: RE: Department Comment on ADU Ordinance?

Here are some comments and observations:

The current language in the Zoning Ordinance (21A.04.030) references ((the adopted building code" so Neil's follows that generic terminology. However, per our previous discussion, the Existing Housing Code is currently used

inspections of existing housing units and in the unit legalization process. The construction of new dwelling units review and approval pursuant to the current Building Code.

If an additional dwelling unit is created in a district that permits duplexes and meets the standards for either an AOU or a

I assume that the applicant could chose either the AOU or duplex standards for compliance.

Section 01 appears to allow an owner/occupant if they show 50% deeded ownership. Section 3 negates Section 1'?

Section E2 addresses exceptions to the owner occupied requirement. If a property is in foreclosure, or unoccupied and

for sale, would the property be reviewed under the nonconforming use section of the Zoning Ordinance?

Section E2d(2) states ((accessory dwelling units may be of the same height and have the same setbacks ..... " Suggest: ((may be of the same height and must meet the same setbacks ..... "

If a new ADU/garage is constructed to the rear of an SF we would require that the structure meet the applicable setbacks for a principal structure. Would the garage portion of the construction be required to seek an average setback

determination or a variance because it is further than 5' from the rear property line?

Section E2d(2) states an accessory structure may be converted into an accessory dwelling unit but any non-complying setbacks may not become more non-complying. If an ADU is constructed on top of an existing garage would that be considered more non-complying?

Section E2g states conditional home occupati~ns are not allowed in an ADU. Determining which unit is the ADU will delay horne occupation approvals. Suggest allowing 1 conditional home occupation per SF/ADU when both units are contained within the primary building.

Section E4 appears to severely restrict up and down principal dwelling/ADU development within larger homes. Perhaps

this requirement should be limited to detached ADU's.

Section E6 states Transportation may waive or modify stall dimensions. This language implys that Transportation may waive the parking stall requirement as well as modify the stall dimensions. Also, unless front yard parking will be

permitted for ADU's, suggest including wording in the tandem parking paragraph that states all parking must be in a

legal location.

Section E7a does not address side yard entrances. Section 24.01OH will come into play when the principal means of

entry is in the side yard. Suggest noting the 12' minimum yard area and the 8' of landscaping in both the pt'incipal build and detached building scenarios.

Section E7b(2) requires access from an alley when one is present. Many alleys shown on sidwell plats have been

functionally abandoned.

1

Date post:	21-Sep-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	trinhcong
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times